Epicurus Pamela Gordon

Home , Apelles, Catius, Diogenes of Oenoanda, Hermarchus, Leontion, Myia

The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus

The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus Pamela Gordon

is book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publisher.

Published in the United States of America by e University of Michigan Press Manufactured in the United States of America c Printed on acid-free paper

2015 2014 2013 2012 4 3 2 1

A CIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Gordon, Pamela, 1957– e invention and gendering of Epicurus / Pamela Gordon. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-472-11808-3 (cloth : acid-free paper) — ISBN 978-0-472- 02817-7 (e-book) 1. Epicurus—Criticism and interpretation. 2. Epicureans (Greek philosophy) I. Title. B573.G67 2012 187—dc23 2011043630 To Li and Mei

Acknowledgments

is book was made possible by fellowships from the American Council of Learned Societies and the Hall Center for the Humanities at the University of Kansas. I also received support from the College of Arts and Sciences and the Graduate Research Fund of the University of Kansas. I am extremely grateful to the scholars who generously offered their advice, corrections, and timely encouragement. I owe thanks to the anonymous refer- ees for the University of Michigan Press. Elizabeth Asmis offered perceptive critiques of chapters 2 and 4. Tony Corbeill offered invaluable comments on two dras of chapter 4 and graciously claimed to have found that painstaking work pleasurable. Bernie Frischer sent me a helpful response to chapter 2. Julia Dyson Hejduk shared many insights that improved chapters 2 and 4, and it was her article “Dido the Epicurean” that first inspired me to pursue Phaeacian paths. Hanne Sigismund Nielsen shared her wise responses to chapter 3, Allen Brent answered questions about the statue of Saint Hippolytus at the Vatican Library, Sheila Dillon was kind to answer my queries about portrait statues, and Teresa Morgan shared her wisdom about ancient proverbs. William Duffy cor- responded with me about my earlier work on the Phaeacians and sent me data from his own investigation of Phaeacian traditions. Patricia FitzGibbon allowed me to read her unpublished articles on Aelian and helped me sort out which lines in the Suda ought to be ascribed to him. Tara Welch offered advice about translating Seneca’s indignation into idiomatic English. Beth Sperry, Car- oline Jewers, and Marni Kessler offered sage advice about various modes of writing; and Marni helped me make the introduction clearer. My spouse, Harold Washington, is always my best reader. Far too long ago, I benefited from the responses to my various papers presented at meetings of the American Philosophical Association, the Classical viii 

Association of the Middle West and South, and the Hellenistic Moral Philoso- phy unit of the Society of Biblical Literature and from the encouragement of John Finamore, Ellen Greene, and Hanne Sigismund Nielsen, who invited me to give talks at the University of Iowa, the University of Oklahoma, and the University of Calgary, respectively. Also long ago, I learned much from Julia Gaisser’s critique of a previous incarnation of chapter 2. I owe many thanks for the congeniality of my unparalleled colleagues Tony Corbeill, Stan Lombardo, Emma Scioli, Michael Shaw, Phil Stinson, Tara Welch, and John Younger and also of my students at the University of Kansas. Among my students I must thank in particular Kirk Bray, Wade Cartwright, Lisa Feldkamp, Doug Fischel, Tiﬀany Huggard-Lee, Cara Polsley, Mark Preus, Mariah Smith, Anna Talleur, and Cat Wilson. Doug Fischel pressed me on several points about the Epicurean telos, and Cara Polsley demanded clarity, caught many errors, and tactfully pointed out that an earlier dra of the introduction was better suited to the book I at first set out to write. Sonia Farmer, her assistant Lauren Callahan, and Pam LeRow were also extremely helpful. For Epicurean companionship—including spiritual and intellectual sustenance in general—I thank Maggie Childs, Caroline and Hammish Jewers, Marni Kessler, Beth Sperry, and Harold Washington. ey have helped me seek ataraxia on many occasions. My deep appreciation of them expands conceptions of Epicurean friendship and aligns me with the “timid Epicureans” mentioned by Torquatus (Cicero, Fin. 1.69). Marni’s role as honorary sister and aunt is especially valued, as always. Denise DeTommaso was great company for many miles beyond counting. Also with me at many turns have been my sisters, Sheila Ulrich and Deirdre Gordon; my mother, Janice Gordon; my nephew Henry Ulrich; and the memories of my nephew Tommy Ulrich and my father, Kenneth Hickok Gordon. Li, Mei Mei, and Harold make it all worthwhile. e wonderful and inspiring company of Li and Mei Mei, who have startled Harold and me by suddenly turning ten and six, has sped me up as much as their need to eat, play, and wear clean clothes has slowed me down. Contents

Introduction 1 chapter 1. e First Lampoons of Epicurus 14 chapter 2. Odysseus and the Telos 38 chapter 3. A Woman Named “Pleasing” 72 chapter 4. Virtus and Voluptas 109 chapter 5. e Material Epicurean 139 conclusion: e Size of the Sun and the Gender of the Philosopher 178

Works Cited 197

Index Locorum 213

General Index 219

Introduction

If renown is pleasant, disgrace is painful; and nothing is more disgraceful than lack of friends, idleness, irreligion, hedonism, or being regarded with contempt. All people except the Epicureans themselves consider these attributes to belong to their sect. (Plutarch, Non posse 1100 C–D)1

I shall not say what most of our own [Stoics] say, that the sect of Epi- curus is the instructress of indecencies. But I do say this: it has a bad reputation; it is notorious. “But that is unfair,” someone might protest. But how would an outsider know? Its very facade provides opportunity for gossip and inspires wicked expectation. It is like a man in a dress: your chastity remains, your virility is unimpaired, your body has not submitted sexually, but in your hand is a tympanum.2 (Seneca, De vita beata 13)

As a philosophical community and as a way of seeing the world, Epicureanism had a centuries-long life in Athens and Rome, as well as in cities and towns across the Mediterranean. In the words of Diogenes Laertius, who records in the third century CE that the school in Athens had already survived without in- terruption for half a millennium, the friends of Epicurus “outnumbered the populations of whole cities” (10.9). But despite its longevity and its many adherents, extant Greek and Roman texts that disparage Epicureanism generally

1. εἴ γε μὴν τὸ εὐδοξεῖν ἡδύ, τὸ ἀδοξεῖν δήπου λυπηρόν ἀδοξότερον δ’ ἀφιλίας ἀπραξίας ἀθεότητος ἡδυπαθείας ὀλιγωρίας οὐθέν ἐστι. ταῦτα δὲ πάντες ἄνθρωποι πλὴν αὐτῶν ἐκείνων τῇ αἱρέσει προσεῖναι νομίζουσιν. 2. Itaque non dicam quod plerique nostrorum, sectam Epicuri flagitiorum magistram esse, sed illud dico: male audit, infamis est. ‘At inmerito.’Hoc scire qui potest nisi interius admissus? frons eius ipsa dat locum fabulae et ad malam spem inritat. Hoc tale est quale uir fortis stolam indutus: constat tibi pudicitia, uirilitas salua est, nulli corpus tuum turpi patientiae uacat, sed in manu tympanum est. 2       drown out the works that elucidate or endorse it. Dominant voices in both Greece and Rome routinely depict the Epicurean as a monstrous or laughable figure. Even the popularity of Epicureanism damaged its reputation. Cicero, for example, presents a mock interview of Epicurus (over two centuries aer his death) in which the philosopher is accused of having an imprecise and confus- ing theory of pleasure. When cornered by a single argument, Epicurus sputters: “I can find many people—no, countless people—less inquisitive and bother- some than you are, whom I can easily persuade to believe whatever I want.”3 At first glance, the development of the notoriety of Epicurus is a straightforward matter: the Epicurean focus on happiness and pleasure was easily lampooned as license for debauchery. But the traditions about the Garden (as the school of Epicurus was called) and the production of anti-Epicurean discourse traveled long and complex routes. e aim of this study is to present a necessarily fragmented history of the way the Garden’s outlook on pleasure captured Greek and Roman imagina- tions—particularly among non-Epicureans—for generations aer its legendary founding. Unsympathetic sources from disparate eras generally focus not on particular historic personages but on the symbolic Epicurean. Yet one of my goals is to show how the traditions of this imagined Garden, with its disreputable women and unmanly men, give us intermittent glimpses of historical Epicureans and their conceptions of the Epicurean life. Although this is not a book about the philosophy of Epicurus, I hope to suggest how a close hearing and contextualization of anti-Epicurean discourse leads us back to a better understanding of the cultural history of Epicureanism itself. My primary focus will be on sources hostile to the Garden, but I hope that my Epicurean-friendly perspective will be apparent throughout. I hope also that my engagement with ancient anti-Epicurean discourse makes more palpable its impact on modern responses to the Garden. As A. A. Long has written recently, “Epicurus, though much of his thought is firmly rooted in the Greek tradition, was too innovative overall to gain a fair hearing from his intellectual rivals; and the process of rehabilitation is still far from complete.”4 Any history of anti-Epicurean discourse must be sewn together from a broad range of sources that do not lend themselves to neat accounts of chrono- logical development or to continuous narratives about the relationships be-

3. Over two centuries aer his death, Epicurus speaks in Latin: Reperiam multos vel innu- merabiles potius non tam curiosos nec tam molestos quam vos estis, quibus quidquid velim facile persuadeam (Cicero, Fin. 2.28). 4. Long 2006: 199.  3 tween one critic and another. Although I examine some of the clearer instances of linear progression in the portrayals of Epicurus, this study is organized primarily according to the themes that receive persistent attention among Epicu- rus’ detractors. I hope that my readers include students in addition to scholars, so I begin here with a thumbnail sketch of those aspects of Epicureanism that are most relevant to a history of its reception among its critics. e philosopher Epicurus (who was born in Samos in 341 BCE and died in Athens in 270 BC) began what soon became known as Epicureanism by gathering a group of friends and students in a house and garden in Athens.5 More than a school of philosophy, the Garden was a community of like-minded and aspiring practitioners of a particular way of life. e early members who helped shape the Epi- curean outlook included Epicurus’ most influential associates, Metrodorus, Hermarchus, and Polyaenus. Other men and women, free and slave, were important first-generation associates or friends of Epicurus, but, as I will demonstrate in chapter 3, the history of women in Epicureanism is very unclear. As is well known, the central thesis of Epicurean philosophy is that pleasure is the telos (the fulfillment or goal of life).6 Followers of Epicurus sometimes disagreed about core issues, such as whether “pleasure” should be understood negatively as the absence of pain and distress and whether the goodness of pleasure is self-evident. ey shared, however, a general approach that places a high value not only on the physical, bodily pleasures but on cerebral joy and happiness. Epicurean pleasure is characterized by contentment and the absence of turmoil, strife, pain, and fear. ese attributes are essential, and in Epicurean texts, the praise of pleasure (ἡδονή in Greek, voluptas in Latin) appears less frequently than one might surmise from the testimonies of hostile readers.7 e tetrapharmakos (or “fourfold remedy”), an ancient set of abbreviated maxims that encapsulated Epicureanism for students, does not name pleasure when it declares succinctly, “God is not to be feared; death is not to be dreaded; the

5. Epicurus had begun to teach five years prior to the purchase of the garden, first in Myti- lene, and then in Lampsacus (Diog. Laert. 10.15). 6. Translation of telos into English can be vexed: “‘Goal’ is not a particularly happy translation, since it fails to connote completeness and culmination, which are important aspects of the concept. But it does have the advantage of emphasizing the fact that the telos is the unified object of all human striving” (Inwood and Donini 1999: 684). 7. In the extant texts of Epicurus, we oen find happiness (εὐδαιμονία) and joy (χαρά) as constituent elements of the Epicurean life (e.g., Ep. Men. 122, 127, Vat. Sent. 81). In the proem to the second book of De rerum natura, Lucretius describes the Epicurean life as delightful (suavis) and sweet (dulcis). 4       good is readily obtainable; the bad is readily endurable.”8 Acceptance of the last two tenets might be gained through a straightforward discussion of Epicurean ethics, which taught that simple pleasures are readily attainable and that acute pain is short lived. An understanding of the first tenets—“God is not to be feared; death is not to be dreaded”—required firmer grounding in a mode of natural science that placed humanity in the context of the atoms and void of the universe. e identification of these teachings as a “remedy” (pharmakos) represents a medical metaphor formulated by many Epicureans: the Garden offered a cure for human suﬀering.9 e tetrapharmakos captured the essentials for beginners in antiquity and should serve as a guide for present-day inquiries into the nature of Epicure- anism. My contextualization of Epicurean conceptions of pleasures in this book will also serve as a primer, particularly in chapter 2, which explores how outsiders located the origins of Epicurean pleasures in Homer’s Odyssey and how Epicureans responded to (and perhaps first established) that tradition. For a more comprehensive presentation of the philosophy of Epicurus as a whole, readers should turn to one of the recent overviews such as that by David Kon- stan, who writes, “His system included advice on the proper attitude toward politics (avoid it where possible) and the gods (do not imagine that they concern themselves about human beings and their behavior), the role of sex (dubious), marriage (also dubious) and friendship (essential), reflections on the nature of various meteorological and planetary phenomena, about which it was best to keep an open mind in the absence of decisive verification, and explanations of such processes as gravity and magnetism, which posed considerable challenges to the ingenuity of the earlier atomists.”10 e objective of Epicurean reflections about natural phenomena was intimately connected to the release from fear and attainment of happiness. A doctrinal saying included in the Prin- cipal Doctrines, a set of maxims that were formulated by Epicurus or excerpted from Epicurean texts, makes this outlook particularly clear. e eleventh maxim states, “If we had never been oppressed by misapprehensions about the

8. Here I quote the tetrapharmakos as quoted by Philodemus (ἄφοβον ὁ θεός. ἀνύποπτον ὁ θάνατος, καὶ τἀγαθόν μὲν εὔκτητον, τὸ δὲ δεινὸν εὐεκκαρτέρητον) (PHerc. 1005, col. 5 = Epi- curus, fr. 196 Arrighetti). e tetrapharmakos has a solid base in the texts of Epicurus, but the four-part condensation may have originated in the first century BCE. For further discussion, see Tsouna 2007: 19–20, 24. 9. Examples include Diog. Laert. 10.138; Lucretius, DRN 1.935; and Diogenes of Oenanda, fr.3.IV–VI. On the latter, see Warren 2000. 10. Konstan 2009. See also Konstan 2002 and Algra et al. 1999.  5 phenomena above us, or about death (which is nothing to us), or by ignorance of the limits of pains and desires, we would not have needed to study natural science.”11 e twelh adds that the study of nature is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of unmixed pleasure. For an Epicurean, philosophy itself is a pleasure. As one quotation culled from a lost work of Epicurus declares, “One must laugh and philosophize at the same time.”12 Another fragment asserts, “In other pursuits, the hard-won fruit comes at the end. But in philosophy, delight [τὸ τερπνόν] keeps pace with knowledge. It is not aer the lesson that enjoyment [ἀπόλαυσις] comes: learning and enjoyment happen at the same time.”13 For the Roman poet Lucretius, Epi- curus’ revelation of the science of the universe results in pleasure and awe.14 Not a lonely pursuit, the study of philosophy was best enjoyed among friends, and the biographical traditions (whether hostile or aﬃrmative) stress the communication between Epicurus and his students. Epicurus’ own Letter to Menoeceus, a nontechnical summary of ethics addressed to an older newcomer, culminates in an exhortation to study philosophy night and day—not only in solitude, but also with a like-minded companion (Ep. Men. 135). Friendship played a vital role in the attainment of security and happiness. As another excerpt from an unidentified text by Epicurus or another early Epicurean puts it, “e noble person engages most with wisdom and friendship; the former of which is a mortal good, the latter, immortal” (Sent. Vat. 78). e twenty-seventh maxim in the Principal Doctrines instructs, “Of the things wisdom acquires for the blessedness of life as a whole, far the greatest is the possession of friendship.”15 e issue most fundamental to Epicureanism—that pleasure is the telos and that life is to be enjoyed—drew the most fire in antiquity. Alleged atheism, a supposedly impoverished theory of friendship, and an Epicurean tradition of withdrawing from politics were also frequent targets. Occasionally, the frequent critiques of Epicurean science cross over to straightforward mockery. But for unsympathetic observers, the focal point was simply the word pleasure. Un- friendly caricatures began early enough to elicit a response from Epicurus himself. In the Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus writes,

11. Εἰ μηθὲν ἡμᾶς αἱ τῶν μετεώρων ὑποψίαι ἠνώχλουν καὶ αἱ περὶ θανάτου, μή ποτε πρὸς ἡμᾶς ᾖτι, ἔτι τε τὸ μὴ κατανοεῖν τοὺς ὅρους τῶν ἀλγηδόνων καὶ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν, οὐκ ἂν προ- σεδεόμεθα φυσιολογίας. 12. Sent. Vat. 41. 13. Sent. Vat. 27. 14. his ibi me rebus quaedam divina voluptas / percipit atque horror, quod sic natura tua vi / tam manifesta patens ex omni parte retecta est (DRN 3.27–29). 15. Translation by A. A. Long (2006: 191). 6      

῞Οταν οὖν λέγωμεν ἡδονὴν τέλος ὑπάρχειν, οὐ τὰς τῶν ἀσώτων ἡδονὰς καὶ τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας λέγομεν, ὥς τινες ἀγνοοῦντες καὶ οὐχ ὁμολογοῦντες ἢ κακῶς ἐκδεχόμενοι νομίζουσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μήτε ἀλγεῖν κατὰ σῶμα μήτε ταράττεσθαι κατὰ ψυχήν. (Ep. Men. 131)

[So whenever we say that pleasure is the telos [the fulfillment or end], we do not mean the pleasures of degenerates and pleasures that consist of physical enjoyment, as some assume (out of ignorance and because they disagree, or because they misconstrue our meaning), but we mean the absence of pain in the body and the absence of distress in the spirit.]

Detractors had apparently named particular vices, so Epicurus continues with a short catalog of various sorts of dissipation and counters them with a brief synopsis of the Epicurean ideal:

οὐ γὰρ πότοι καὶ κῶμοι συνείροντες οὐδ’ ἀπολαύσεις παίδων καὶ γυναικῶν οὐδ’ ἰχθύων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὅσα φέρει πολυτελὴς τράπεζα, τὸν ἡδὺν γεννᾷ βίον, ἀλλὰ νήφων λογισμὸς καὶ τὰς αἰτίας ἐξερευνῶν πάσης αἱρέσεως καὶ φυγῆς καὶ τὰς δόξας ἐξελαύνων, ἐξ ὧν πλεῖστος τὰς ψυχὰς καταλαμβάνει (5) θόρυβος. (Ep. Men. 132)

[It is neither nonstop drinking and revelry nor physical enjoyment of boys and women nor fish or other elements of a lavish banquet that produce a pleasant life, but sober reasoning and searching out reasons for choice and avoidance, and banishing the sorts of received opinions that cause the greatest disturbance of the spirit.]

e doctrine of “choice and avoidance” was key: poorly chosen pleasures could result ultimately in turmoil or pain.16 is passage in the Letter to Menoeceus inspired a creative Epicurean tradition of listing anew the supposed pleasures that do not constitute the pleasant life. As I show in chapter 2, the poet Lucretius, taking Homer as his inspiration, avows that an ornate palace decorated with lavish statues, gold, silver, and pan-

16. According to Principal Doctrines 8, “No pleasure is in itself evil, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.” One of Philodemus’ fragmentary essays affirms the emphasis on the necessity of rational selection and has been given the title On Choices and Avoidances by modern editors (see Tsouna 1995).  7 eled ceilings was not necessary: friends could gather outside, sitting on the grass (DRN 2.20). Nor does an ornate and expensive quilt (as opposed to a rough blanket) make a fever pass more quickly. A few centuries later, as befits his affable garrulousness, Diogenes of Oenoanda offers several lists of dubious, non-Epicurean pleasures in his monumental publicly displayed inscription. First, Diogenes posts the following, in large letters on limestone blocks: “I declare . . . [that] joy [of real value is generated not by theatres] and . . . baths [and perfumes] and ointments, [which we] have le to [the] masses, [but by natural science.]”17 His mention of baths and unguents is particularly relevant to his second-century context, when the Roman habit of luxurious bathing was a frequent object of desire (and censure).18 en, in a different section of the inscription, Diogenes asserts that he will demonstrate that in the pursuit of happiness (εὐδαιμονία), the goal (τέλος) cannot be reached by “wealth, nor political power, nor royal office, nor a life of luxury, nor the lavishness of banquets, nor the pleasures of erotic adventures, but by philosophy.”19 In recently discovered fragments of two other passages, Diogenes adds that gilded ceilings and

17. Translation of the text of fr. 2, col. III Smith. 18. On Roman wariness about the pleasures of bathing, see Dunbabin 1989. Although the word “theaters” is not an entirely certain reading, the words for “baths” and “unguents” are clear in the unrestored text. A second-century inscription (roughly contemporary with Diog - enes) recording five documents related to the establishment of an elaborate theatrical festival confirms the impression of great wealth suggested by the archaeological remains of bath com- plexes, theaters, and open civic spaces at Oenoanda (see Wörrle 1988). If Diogenes’ inscription can be dated to the reign of Hadrian (as seems likely), he was probably writing aer one bathhouse had been constructed in Oenoanda but before the dedication of a more elaborate one. For the baths in Oenoanda, see Ling and Hall 1981 and Coulton 1986. 19. Fr. 29 Smith: ἀλλ’ ὅπως εὐδαι- μονήσωμεν τὸ ἐπι- (col. 2) ζòηòτòούμενον ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως κτησάμενοι τέλος. τί δ’ ἐστὶ τοῦ- το, ὅτι τε μήτε πλοῦ- τος αὐτὸ δύναται (5) παρασχεῖν, μήτε δό- ξα πολειτική, μήτε βασιλεία, μήθ’ ἁβρο- δίαιτος βίος καὶ τρα- πεζῶν πολυτέλεια, (10) μήτ’ ἀφροδεισίων ἐγλελεγμένων ἡδο- ναί, μήτ’ ἄλλο μη- δέν, φιλοσοφία δὲ (col. 3) περιπο[ιεῖν δύναται], 8       extremely so beds and clothing are not necessary.20 As for food, he seems to recommend barley-bread and cabbage.21 is brings us back to Epicurus, who makes a distinction between “philosophy” and the more functional and practicable “wise understanding” or “sound judgment”:

Τούτων δὲ πάντων ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ μέγιστον ἀγαθὸν φρόνησις. διὸ καὶ φιλοσοφίας τιμιώτερον ὑπάρχει φρόνησις, ἐξ ἧς αἱ λοιπαὶ πᾶσαι πεφύκασιν ἀρεταί, διδάσκουσα ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ζῆν ἄνευ τοῦ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως, οὐδὲ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως ἄνευ τοῦ ἡδέως. συμπεφύκασι γὰρ αἱ ἀρεταὶ τῷ ζῆν ἡδέως καὶ τὸ ζῆν ἡδέως τούτων ἐστὶν ἀχώριστον. (Ep. Men. 131–32)

[e fount of all these things and the greatest good is wise understanding. us wise understanding is even more valuable than philosophy, for all the rest of the virtues spring from understanding, which teaches us that it is not possible to live pleasantly without living wisely and honorably and justly, or to live a life of wisdom, honor, and justice without living pleasantly. For virtues are naturally part of a pleasant life, and a pleasant life is inseparable from them.]

When he counters the popular understanding of “pleasures” with his assertion that Epicureans understand pleasures to be “the absence of pain in the body and the absence of distress in the spirit,” Epicurus establishes that Epicurean pleasure involves the mind as well as the body. is corrective emphasis on the mind is also clear from his use of the adjective meaning “pleasantly” or “pleasurably” (ἡδέως) when he writes about the just and virtuous life (Ep. Men. 131–32). It may be due to an increased need to squelch misunderstandings of the word ἡδονή that Diogenes of Oenoanda clarifies the Epicurean stance by referring (in the passages previously quoted) not to ἡδονή but to “joy” and “happiness.” e fame in antiquity of this oen-quoted passage from Epicurus’ Letter to

20. See New Fragment 136 in Smith 2004 and New Fragment 146 in Hammerstaedt and Smith 2008. 21. In New Fragment 146, Diogenes qualifies his rejection of luxurious clothing and bedding by recommending Epicurean comforts: the bed should not be so hard as to fight back when one lies on it, and clothing should not be uncomfortable rough. Similarly, he apparently suggests that one’s diet need not be limited to barley-bread.  9

Menoeceus is echoed by its canonical status in appreciative readings of Epicurus today. In writing this book, I have tried not provoke an equally traditional exasperation in my readers by quoting it at every turn. But like the Epicureans who so irritated Cicero and Plutarch, I shall return to it oen enough.

roughout this book, I use the word discourse to refer to the ways people in Greek and Roman antiquity wrote (and talked, gossiped, and fulminated) about the Garden. My concept of discourse includes not only philosophical discussions about the meaning, significance, and rightness or wrongness of Epi- cureanism but also the various modes of representing the Epicurean, particularly among writers who use vivid language to depict the Epicureans as the polar opposites of themselves. us I include under the rubric of discourse literary allusion, rhetoric, cliché, stereotype, innuendo, the engagement with intertexts, and the repetition of particular catchwords. Also an important facet of discourse is the process of translation from Greek to Latin in antiquity, particularly as exemplified by Cicero’s tendentious translation of the word ἡδονή into Latin, as well as one Epicurean’s reluctance to translate (that of Cassius, who writes in Latin but retains the word ἡδονή in Greek). Here I take individual words as aspects of discourse, rather than limiting my definition to textual features beyond the level of the word or sentence. During my work on this book, insights articulated under the rubric of critical discourse analysis have sharpened my understanding of the workings of vituperative rhetoric that constructed representations of the Garden.22 Starting from the standpoint of linguistic theory, critical discourse analysis (sometimes also called critical language study) draws attention to the controlling mechanisms of grammar, syntax, and other aspects of speech and the written word. Its concern with phonology in particular illuminates the Roman use of alliteration in the antagonistic representation of Epicurean pleasure (voluptas) as an opposition to manly virtue (virtus). Critical discourse analysis also clarifies the capacity of clichés to register their users’ attitudes toward Epicureanism without clarifying the specifics of their claims. us detractors of Epicureanism im- mortalize the paradigmatically eﬀeminate male Epicurean but bypass an elucidation of the particulars of his alleged lack of virtus.

22. For an influential early articulation of this approach, see Norman Fairclough’s Language and Power (1989 and 2001). Foucault’s e Archaeology of Knowledge (1972) and Knowl- edge/Power (1980) are foundational texts, but discourse analysis also draws on the work of Louis Althusser, Jürgen Habermas, and, particularly, Pierre Bourdieu. 10      

While critical discourse analysis, when applied to modes of talking and writing in our present-day society, draws attention to a “somewhat depressing picture of language being increasingly caught up in domination and oppres- sion,”23 the formulation of manipulative and heavy-handed discourse about the Epicureans is sometimes comical. Some polemics are humorous not simply from the vantage point of the ancient detractors but from our present positions as we encounter their extreme distortions of Epicurean theory and practice. I take particular delight in the immoderate and sometimes apparently gleeful anti-Epicurean rhetoric of Seneca and Plutarch, but—as may be apparent to my readers—I sometimes find Cicero exasperating. e comic aspects of their verbal assaults, however, must not have amused many Epicurean contemporaries of Aelian, Cicero, Cleomedes, Plutarch, and Seneca (to cite several expert denouncers of the Garden). What Norman Fairclough identified as a verbal exercise of power may have been hard to bear and likely caused damage to the rep- utations and credibility of historical persons who subscribed to Epicurean beliefs.24 My work is also informed by an interest in cultural poetics (so named by Stephen Greenblatt and sometimes identified as New Historicism). is approach to “the interpretation of literature as an essential element in the cultural creation of identity”25 examines the complex and sometimes reciprocal relationships between texts and personal comportment. We create texts, project an image, and conform to practices that are inflected by our desired or implied position in the world. is self-fashioning is likely to have been informed by other texts and artistic representations; and it contributes, in turn, to a repertoire available to others as they construct their own identities. In the case of the Epi- cureans, detractors sometimes use Epicurus as the converse of their own presentation, particularly in regard to their masculinity. But we more oen encounter types of self-fashioning that are ascribed to Epicureans rather than created by them. For example, within the Garden, we find early portraits of Epi- curus that drew on the iconography for the ideal Athenian citizen. In marked contrast are the eﬀeminate and non-Greek (or non-Roman) demeanors and

23. Fairclough 1989: 4. 24. Ibid. In chapter 4, I examine Cicero’s harnessing of anti-Epicurean discourse in his attempt to discredit Piso, his political opponent and personal enemy. Cicero’s Epicurean friends, such as Cassius and Atticus, seem to have responded with Epicurean equanimity and good humor. 25. Greenblatt 1980: 2.  11 practices imputed to the Epicureans by outsiders. Daily habits are of great con- sequence. e male Epicurean’s clothing, metaphorical and actual, is essential to the construction of his identity. Food also plays a role: the Epicurean diet of bread, cheese, and other simple fare is part of their own self-fashioning, while their enemies assert that the creation of an Epicurean requires sumptuous banqueting habits. If we are to believe Cicero and Seneca, the image projected onto the Epicureans by their detractors influenced the self-fashioning of later Epi- cureans like Apicius, Nomentanus, and Piso, who misunderstood what Epicu- rus meant by pleasure.26 Attention to cultural poetics and the intricacies of discourse require close reading of particular texts and images. at close reading entails, in turn, an awareness of intertextuality and interdiscursivity.27 I use these concepts to refer not simply to the allusiveness of a text or an image but to its engagement with broader discourses, to tendentious borrowings and echoes, to the mingling of diﬀerent genres, to sardonic or satirical quotation, to the use of charged vocabulary, and to the ways later texts address Epicurus directly, as though—hundreds of years later—he were present as a recalcitrant conversation partner.28 As I hope will be apparent throughout this book, my mode of approach involves a close and persistent interrogation of a broad array of disparate yet intercon- nected sources, including the visual as well as the literary. In chapter 1, “e First Lampoons of Epicurus,” I examine the first outsider views of the Garden as presented in nonphilosophical sources. None of the relevant texts survive as full texts contemporary with the fourth- or third-century BCE Garden; instead, they come to us as embedded quotations and references in much later works. Divorced from their original context, these texts are imprecise indicators of the reputation of Epicureanism, but they reveal a great deal nonetheless. A surprising aspect of some of the fragments of New Comedy is a lampooning of Epicurean language that reveals a less cursory familiarity with Epicureanism than one might expect. As later chapters will demonstrate, the interrogation of Epicurean vocabulary will reemerge centuries later in the more hostile critiques.

26. Cicero, In Pisonem; Seneca, De vita beata 12.1–4. 27. Fairclough (2003: 218) identifies the analysis of interdiscursivity as “analysis of the particular mix of genres, of discourses and of styles upon which it draws, and of how diﬀerent genres, discourses or styles are articulated.” 28. Helpful here is Fairclough’s observation that the representation or reporting of speech is a significant aspect of intertextuality. 12      

In chapter 2, “Odysseus and the Telos,” I present an expanded primer on Epicureanism, exploring a tradition that places the Epicureans in a world apart from dominant cultures by connecting them with Homer’s Phaeacians (as they appear in books 8 and 9 of the Odyssey). e texts I treat here are diverse: an epigram by Philodemus; a short, hostile quotation by Plutarch that jumbles Homer with Epicurus; a second- or third-century CE treatise titled Homeric Problems; and allusions in Horace, Lucretius, and Virgil. e ancient sources demonstrate that both Epicureans and outsiders had an interest in this tradition. While many incorporated the equation between the Phaeacians and the Epicureans into their hostile assessments of the Garden, some Epicureans seem to have embraced that equation. A questioning of the manliness of the Epi- curean is here a tacit undercurrent. As we shall see in the following chapters, Roman discourse (and Greek, though to a lesser extent) considers devotion to pleasure (and to food in particular) as a vice antithetical to manliness. Chapter 3, “A Woman Named ‘Pleasing,’” presents the evidence for the presence of women in the school of Epicurus. For Plutarch, the women (whom he calls “hetaerae,” a term akin to “courtesans” or “women of disrepute”) are mere ornaments and sex partners, but other sources identify them as students or fellow philosophers. When Cicero mentions a woman named Leontion as the author of an Epicurean philosophical text, he presents her as an aberration indicative of Epicurean licentiousness. His reference to a female Epicurean named emista is similarly contemptuous. It is tempting to extrapolate from Diogenes Laertius’ report about slaves who “philosophized in association with” Epicurus (συνεφιλοσόφουν, 10.3 and 10.10) and to posit that women of low social or economic status joined them. Tempting also is the argument that the women were not there by mere chance but that the Epicurean worldview made the Garden particularly open to female seekers of wisdom and happiness. Yet the traditions about “Epicurean women”—whether they were philos ophers, students, or simple “companions”—cannot be securely connected with historical reality. Chapter 4, “Virtus and Voluptas,” focuses on Roman anti-Epicurean discourse from the late republic and early empire, where Epicurean pleasure is formulated as the antithesis of Roman manliness. Oratorical, epistolary, and philosophical texts by Cicero and the essays and letters of Seneca are central here. Nonextant texts—writings by the early Stoics, Brutus’ De virtute, inferior Latin translations of Epicurus—assert a shadowy presence in these pages of Ci- cero and Seneca. While Epicureanism’s reception in Rome was warm in some  13 quarters, it oen met with a particularly Roman abhorrence that was frequently expressed in gendered terms. Some of the controversies sparked by its impor- tation into a foreign context focused closely on the translation and definition of the word pleasure and its juxtaposition with the word virtus (a crystallization of Roman manliness). ese Ciceronian and Senecan manipulations of the words virtus and voluptas belong to a broader context explored in recent cultural critiques that expose the ways that Roman constructions of gender are imbricated with Roman discourse about pleasure. But the anti-Epicurean texts also work the other way around. Rather than fitting into the more general context, this discourse lays out the paradigm, articulating, in the starkest terms, that pleasure and its devotees are eﬀeminate. In chapter 5, “e Material Epicurean,” I examine the physical appearance of Epicureans as it was represented by the Epicureans themselves and by hostile observers. e chapter begins with a discussion of the Epicureans’ portrait statues of Epicurus and his immediate associates, before examining the imagined and metaphorical representations as formulated by their critics. Ancient Epi- curean sculptures and the authors Aelian, Cicero, Plutarch, and Seneca are my most important sources in this chapter. Here, too, the alleged womanishness of male Epicureans plays an essential role. But also striking is the later depiction of the horrific illnesses of first-generation Epicureans. e single post-Hellenis- tic historical person to appear in this chapter is Piso, an Epicurean who—by not looking the part of any Epicurean ogre—presented Cicero with an especially diﬃcult challenge. is book’s conclusion ends with an antidote to the most virulent critiques of the Garden, a second-century CE stereotype of an Epicurean as we meet him in Lucian’s Alexander the False Prophet. ough hardly the ideal Epicurean, this character (whom Lucian presents as himself) is a stalwart opponent of fraud who has chosen a worthy target. No devotee of the pleasures of flesh, this Epi- curean summons the wisdom of Epicurus to expose what Lucian presents as the most outrageous hoax of his era. chapter 1 The First Lampoons of Epicurus

Another clever story about [the philosopher Arcesilaus] goes like this: When someone asked him why it is that students from the other philosophical schools can convert to the Epicurean school but nobody ever crosses over from the Epicureans, he said, “Because men can become eunuchs, but eunuchs never become men.” (Diog. Laert. 4.43)1

Epicurus’ close associate and disciple Metrodorus had a brother named Timo- crates, who claimed that he “loved his brother as nobody else could and hated him as nobody else could.”2 e reference to this remark has survived in On Frank Speech, a work by the first-century CE poet and Epicurean scholar Philodemus, who advocated that Epicurean teachers evaluate their students with as much forthrightness as circumstances would allow. e context suggests that Timocrates, while willing to acknowledge that his teachers had more knowledge of their specialty than he did, was adamant that he was the better, wiser person. is recalcitrance required a particular approach (which the fragmentary text does not detail). Timocrates apparently did not appreciate the candor. He appears also in Philodemus’ On Anger as an example of a person whose anger prevents him from thinking rationally. And there is more: according to Diogenes Laertius’ Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers (written half a millennium aer the death of Metrodorus), this Timocrates—having become disenchanted with Epicurus—wrote an exposé that revealed the unseemly realities of the Epicurean life. It is diﬃcult to reconstruct the first generations of anti-Epicurean dis-

1. Χάριεν δ’ αὐτοῦ φέρεται κἀκεῖνο· πρὸς τὸν πυθόμενον διὰ τί ἐκ μὲν τῶν ἄλλων μεταβαίνουσιν εἰς τὴν Έπικούρειον, ἐκ δὲ τῶν Έπικουρείων οὐδέποτε, ἔφη, “ἐκ μὲν γὰρ ἀνδρῶν γάλλοι γίνονται, ἐκ δὲ γάλλων ἄνδρες οὐ γίνονται.” 2. Philodemus, On Frank Speech, col. XXb.

14      15 course, but we have just enough information to allow me to start here with the very beginnings of outsider views of Epicureanism as they took shape during or soon aer the life of Epicurus. Most of the relevant texts for this early history are preserved as incomplete quotations and references by two very different Greek authors from the era of the Roman Empire who look back at the Garden over a gap of several hundred years: Athenaeus and Diogenes Laertius. Athenaeus, from late second-century CE Egypt, wrote the Δειπνοσοφισταί (e Learned Banqueters), a work that cites approximately 1,250 authors, names over 1,000 plays, and quotes over 10,000 lines of verse, all within the literary framework of a days-long dinner table conversation. We owe to him the preservation of quotations from otherwise lost comic dramas that feature Epi- curean characters. Diogenes Laertius’ Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers (perhaps of the third century CE) is a ten-book compendium of the biographies and doctrines of the Greek philosophers that culminates in an Epicurean-friendly Life of Epicurus. Diogenes himself is so well disposed toward the Garden that he offers Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines not only as the conclusion to the biography but as the pinnacle of and culmination to his entire ten-book work on all of Greek philosophy, thereby “ending with the beginning of happiness” (τέλει χρησάμενοι τῇ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας ἀρχῇ, 10.138). Much of Diogenes’ survey of Epicureanism takes the form of a eulogistic defense of the philosopher, which leads him to mention many authors who disparage Epicurus. In his estimation, these enemies of Epi- curus are all “out of their minds” (10.9).3 To return to Timocrates, it is Diogenes Laertius who tells us about the ex- posé. Styling himself as a defector, Timocrates claims that he had escaped only with difficulty from what he called “those nighttime philosophies” and “that mystery cult” (τὰς νυκτερινὰς ἐκείνας φιλοσοφίας καὶ τὴν μυστικὴν ἐκείνην συνδιαγωγήν, 10.6–7). e exposé, which was sardonically titled Delightful People, or e Delights,4 divulged specific details about Epicurus’ overindulgence, his ignorance, his sickliness, his expenditures on food, and his repetitive

3. For recent reevaluations of Diogenes Laertius, see Gigante 1992, Meier 1992 and 2007, and Warren 2007. Diogenes’ verdict on the anti-Epicurean tradition is unequivocal, but War- ren suggests that Diogenes’ positioning of the Garden at the end of his work was not necessarily an indication of “any personal philosophical allegiance” (138). 4. e precise title is not certain, as it appears in the dative case in the text (ἐν τοῖς ἐπιγραφομένοις Εὐφραντοῖς). e title, which parodies the Epicurean philosophical sense of euphrosyne, is usually understood as a neuter plural and translated e Delights. 16       and querulous prose style. It also named five hetaerae who were sex partners to both Epicurus and Metrodorus, and it listed the terms of abuse Epicurus used when referring to other philosophers. A character in Alciphron’s Letters of Courtesans (which may have predated Diogenes Laertius) claims that Timoc- rates also got the word out by ridiculing Epicurus “in the Ecclesia, in the the- ater, and among the other sophists” (17.10). Timocrates also surfaces in Plutarch’s first-century or early second-century CE anti-Epicurean pieces On the Fact at Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible and the Reply to Colotes. Both texts record that Metrodorus wrote to his brother, “ere is no need to save the Greeks, or to earn a crown of wisdom from them; what we need, Timocrates, is to eat and drink wine, a pleasure and no harm to the belly” (Non posse 1098c; cf. Adv. Col. 1125d, where the lines are quoted with minor variations). Plutarch also provides the quote “Around the belly, Timocrates my man of natural science, lies the good” (Non posse 1098d), words that are quoted again a few generations later by Athenaeus.5 Because the lines are preserved out of context, it is impossible to tell if we are meant to take them as a rebuttal to Ti- mocrates’ exposé or if the lines are meant to represent the outlook that drove Timocrates to make his revelations in the first place. Also unclear is the source of the quotations. Could they have been transmitted, already quoted out of context, within the text written by Timocrates? In Diogenes Laertius’ account, Timocrates’ Delightful People presents what will become the staples of jokes and serious censure alike. In a recent commentary, Geert Roskam has described the situation thus: “[T]here was perhaps nobody who caused as much trouble to Epicurus as Timocrates.”6 But was the ex- posé itself an authentic document contemporary with Epicurus? If it was a bona fide document, was its tone one of sincere outrage, was it a lampoon, or was it a combination of the two? Diogenes preserves our only reference to the exposé or to any text by Timocrates. Diogenes’ methods of citing and manipulating the dozens of sources he mentions are not always transparent, but he sometimes reveals that his knowledge of some of his sources is only secondhand (at the closest). He clearly has a negative opinion of Timocrates, whom he calls “shiless” (εἰκαῖον, 10.23), but he oﬀers no assurances that he himself has seen the full text or that the text is genuine. If Delightful People was indeed an

5. περὶ γαστέρα γάρ, ὦ φυσιολόγε Τιμόκρατες, τὸ ἀγαθόν (Plutarch 1098d; cf. Ath. 7.280a). 6. Roskam 2007b: 43.      17 actual text from the late fourth or early third century BCE, the secondhand report would give us a clear idea of the Garden’s reputation during its first years. Particularly interesting are not only the mention of food, revelry, sex, and illness but the characterization of Epicureanism as a mystery cult. e latter may be a reference to the Epicurean detachment from the outside world or to the way followers revered Epicurus.7 But the presentation of a testimonial in the voice of an escapee sounds like a suspiciously obvious basis for a fictional account. In fact, another of the opponents of the Garden who are characterized by Diogenes as “out of their minds” is a Stoic who wrote fiy “dirty” letters and attributed them to Epicurus (10.3). ere, too, it is hard to know if the letters were slanderous fakes written to fool their readers or were written as hilarious send-ups. Diogenes Laertius’ allusions are too brief for us to distinguish comedy from scathing, serious critique. Because Timocrates’ exposé may be an invention written at some point during the centuries that separated Epicurus from our earliest references to it, other texts oﬀer more secure starting points for a history of Epicurus jokes and anti-Epicurean discourse. Openly comedic or satirizing sources that survive as quotations embedded in much later literary works provide a more certain indication of Epicurus’ earliest reputation. e authenticity and rough date of these fragments are securely verifiable when the quoting source names the author and oﬀers a verbatim quotation that is guaranteed (in general) by its metrical accuracy. To start with an author who was certainly a younger contemporary of Epicurus, the Silloi (Σίλλοι) by Timon of Phlius treated Epicurus in at least a few lines. Timon was a Pyrrhonist whose pseudo-Homeric hexameters cast aspersions on philosophers other than Pyrrho (the founder of Greek Skepticism [c. 365–275 BCE]). Around twenty years his junior, Timon was fiy when Epicurus died, and it is possible that Epicurus was still living when Timon satirized him.8 Although the Silloi, or Lampoons, spoofed the philosophers, the work has also been characterized as “a doxographical pastiche rather than a travesty of philosophers’ lives” and as a series of attacks on “unjustified claims to truth or

7. For Roskam, Timocrates’ criticism “aimed at the very heart of Epicurean life” (Roskam 2007b: 43). 8. On Timon’s probable dates (325–235), see Clayman 2009: 15 and n. 32, with bibliography. It is possible that all of the philosophers Timon lampoons were presented as characters he meets in the Underworld (Clayman 2009: 3). 18      

learned pretentiousness.”9 In any case, the two surviving fragments that deal with Epicurus are disappointingly banal. A one-line fragment quoted by Athenaeus (7.279f = Supplementum Hellenisticum 781) deals with food:

γαστρὶ χαριζόμενος τῆς οὐ λαμυρώτερον οὐδέν.

[Pleasing the belly, than which nothing is more greedy.]

More illustrative of Timon’s use of hexameter are two lines quoted by Diogenes Laertius (10.3):

ὕστατος αὖ φυσικῶν καὶ κύντατος, ἐκ Σάμου ἐλθὼν γραμμοδιδασκαλίδης, ἀναγωγότατος ζωόντων.10

[Last and most shameless of the natural philosophers, from Samos, son of a school master, most ignorant of living things.]

Diogenes Laertius, whose Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers cites or quotes Timon approximately forty times, seems to quote Timon here despite his Epicurean sympathies—as though the lines were too clever to exclude. Of course, Diogenes uses them not to highlight Epicurus’ “shamelessness” but to support another report that Epicurus’ father was a schoolteacher. Without the context of the surrounding lines, it is diﬃcult to tell how much the word that can be translated as “most shameless” (κύντατος, literally “most doglike”) is meant to stress Epicurus’ supposed animal-like qualities or whether there is a play on another philosophical group (perhaps treated in the preceding hexameters), the Cynics (Κυνικοί). An alternative would be to assume a textual error and to read “most piglike” rather than “most doglike,” which would be a transparent reference to the oen-made link between Epicureans and pigs.11 Timon also mocks Dionysius of Herakleia (c. 328–248 BCE), an originally Stoic philosopher who was called “Renegade” because he switched his allegiance to the Garden in his old age:

9. Long 1978: 81, 72. 10. Athenaeus (13.588b) quotes the second line also but changes cases from accusative to nominative. 11. See Di Marco 1983.      19

ἡνίκ’ ἐχρῆν δύνειν, νῦν ἄρχεται ἡδύνεσθαι· ὥρη ἐρᾶν, ὥρη δὲ γαμεῖν, ὥρη δὲ πεπαῦσθαι.12

[When he should have been heading down, he starts living it up. ere is a time to love, a time to marry, and a time to quit.]

In Greek sources, interest in sex when one’s age is advanced is particularly laughable. Ignorance and overindulgence in food and sex (at any age) are “Epi- curean” defects that will recur in later critiques. is fragment also implies that the trading of a Stoic outlook for supposedly Epicurean practice represents a decline in judgment. Unfortunately, Athenaeus, who is our source for these two lines, does not make clear whether he is paraphrasing Timon or offering his own commentary when he refers flippantly to the abandoning of Stoicism as Dionysius’ “hopping over” (μεταπηδήσας) to the Garden and writes that Dionysius was delighted to be called “Renegade.” It is difficult to si out Ti- mon’s contribution from Athenaeus’ much later editorializing in the following phrase: ὃς ἄντικρυς ἀποδὺς τὸν τῆς ἀρετῆς χιτῶνα ἀνθινὰ μετημφιάσατο (“[Dionysius . . .] who took off his chiton of virtue in exchange for a flowery one,” Ath. 7.281d). If Timon presented Epicurean garb as effeminate, it would mean that the feminizing of the Epicurean male that is so patent in later sources had already started during or soon aer the life of Epicurus. But it may be impossible to detangle the quotation of Timon from Athenaeus’ own remarks. Another, more likely candidate for early commentary on the gender of the Epi- cureans appears in the epigraph to this chapter. I shall return to it at the chapter’s conclusion. Send-ups of Epicureanism also appeared in New Comedy (late fourth to second centuries BCE), some of which may have been staged during the life of Epicurus or very soon thereaer. In the fragments of On Piety, the first-century BCE poet and Epicurean scholar Philodemus asserts energetically that Epicu- rus was the only philosopher who was secure against the attacks of comic poets: “In fact, while some philosophers were prosecuted for their way of life and for their teachings, and some were exiled from city, some even from league, and put to death, and all became the butt of writers of comedy, only Epicurus mag-

12. Ath. 7.281e and 13.601c–d. ere is a pun on δύνειν (“to set,” “to go down to Hades”) and ἡδύνεσθαι (“to have pleasure”). Clayman (2009: 90–91) links all of Timon’s surviving lines on Epicurus with specific words or lines uttered by Homer’s Odysseus. 20       nificently secured protection for himself together with those who dwelt with him according to the genuine precepts of the school, without falling prey to the virtue-hating and all-harassing mouth of comedy.”13 e columns of papyrus fragments that follow focus on the charge against Socrates of impiety, so Philodemus may have seen Socrates’ death as the result of the caricature of Socrates in Aristophanes’ Clouds, for example. A generous interpretation takes Philodemus to count Epicureans among “all the philosophers,” who were the butts of comic poets. In this reading, Philodemus means to assert that the jokes about Epicurus never harmed any Epicureans. Or perhaps he means simply that the jokes postdated the life of Epicurus (which is possible). Surely he knew that lampoons of Epicureans appeared frequently in New Comedy. Because Greek comedy “had singled out food and eating as its own special preserve,” satires focusing on the Epicureans’ alleged devotion to bodily pleasures were an obvious topic.14 Along with the jokes about food sometimes came references to sex and drink. More surprisingly, Epicurean language also became a humorous subject. at the Garden of Epicurus provided perfect material for the comic poets is articulated explicitly in Athenaeus’ e Learned Banqueters. In a short passage that refers to the corrupting influence of the Epicurean attitude on pleasure, a quotation of Epicurus that had gained some notoriety is followed directly by a reference to New Comedy:

καὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἐγκαλυπτόμενος ὁ Έπίκουρος λέγει, ἀλλὰ μεγάλῃ τᾐ φωνᾐ· ‘οὐ γὰρ ἔγωγε δύναμαι νοῆσαι τἀγαθὸν ἀφελὼν μὲν τὴν διὰ χυλῶν, ἀφελὼν δὲ τὴν δι’ ἀφροδισίων ἡδονήν.’ οἴεται γὰρ οὕτως ὁ σοφὸς καὶ τὸν ἀσώτων βίον ἀνεπίληπτον εἶναι, εἴπερ αὐτῷ προσγένοιτο τὸ ἀδεὲς καὶ ἵλεων. διὸ καὶ οἱ τῆς κωμῳδίας ποιηταὶ κατατρέχοντές που τῆς ἡδονῆς καὶ ἀκρασίας ἐπικούρους καὶ βοηθοὺς βοῶσιν. (7.278f)

[In fact, Epicurus—not in secret but at high volume—says, “For I indeed am not able to conceive the good, if I exclude the pleasure that comes from tastes or

13. On Piety 53.1512–32, translation by Dirk Obbink (1996: 211). 14. Wilkins 2000a: 33. On the centrality of food in Old, Middle, and New Greek comedy, see Wilkins 2000a: 33–35 and 2000b.      21

erotic experiences.” So the wise Epicurus considers the dissolute lifestyle to be blameless as long as its practitioners have serenity and no fear. For this reason, wherever the comic poets are lambasting pleasure and want of self-control, they call in the Epicureans.]

A more literal translation would obscure the reference to the Garden here, but the meaning is clear in the Greek. In the last line, the comic poets shout simply for “helpers and assistants,” but the word translated “helpers,” ἐπικούρους (epi- courous), is a pun on the name Epicureans. is comment suggests that Epicu- rus and his students were regular features in New Comedy, but unfortunately the dinner party conversation that immediately follows records only four relevant fragments. All four quotations, however, are more detailed than any other early references to Epicurus, and most are long enough for us to form an impression of their spirit, which is playful, rather than venomous. One of Athenaeus’ quotations that names Epicurus comes from Bato’s e Accomplice (Συνεξαπατῶν), or Partner in Deception. In this play from the middle of the third century (perhaps as few as twenty-five or thirty years aer the death of Epicurus), a father rebukes his son’s pedagogue, “You have taken my boy and ruined him!” Under the pedagogue’s influence, the boy is even drinking in the morning. e following interchange ensues:

[Pedagogue]: εἶτ’ εἰ μεμάθηκε, δέσποτα, ζῆν, ἐγκαλεῖς; [Father]: ζῆν δ’ ἐστὶ τὸ τοιοῦθ’; [Pedagogue]: ὡς λέγουσιν οἱ σοφοί. ὁ γοῦν Έπίκουρός φησιν εἶναι τἀγαθὸν τὴν ἡδονὴν δήπουθεν· οὐκ ἔστιν δ’ ἔχειν ταύτην ἑτέρωθεν, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ζῆν παγκάλως.15 (e Learned Banqueters 7.279a–b)

[[Pedagogue]: Are you accusing me, Master, of having taught him to live? [Father]: is is living? [Pedagogue]: So say the wise. As a matter of fact, Epicurus says that the good is pleasure. at can’t be gotten from anywhere else, except from living really well.]

15. According to Olson (2008: 287), the first syllables of the next line, which may also have referred to Epicurean pleasure, are corrupt. 22      

en, in e Murderer (Ό ἀνδροφόνος), Bato adds sex to the “Epicurean” vice of drinking by day. Aer an unidentified character ridicules an unnamed “decent” philosopher (in some lines that Athenaeus does not record), he continues,

ἐξὸν γυναῖκ’ ἔχοντα κατακεῖσθαι καλὴν καὶ Λεσβίου χυτρῖδε λαμβάνειν δύο· ὁ φρόνιμός ἐστι <τοῦτο,> τοῦτο τἀγαθόν. Έπίκουρος ἔλεγε ταῦθ’ ἃ νῦν ἐγὼ λέγω. εἰ τοῦτον ἔζων πάντες ὃν ἐγὼ ζῶ βίον, οὔτ’ ἄτοπος ἦν ἂν οὔτε μοιχὸς οὐδὲ εἷς. (Ath. 7.279 c–d)

[When he can lie down with a beautiful woman and take twin jugs of Lesbian wine—is is a wise man. is is the good. Epicurus used to say the things I am saying now. If everybody lived the life that I live, not a single man would be wicked or an adulterer.]

Unfortunately, without further clues about the specific context, it is hard to tell whether the character is claiming that wicked people would not exist in an Epi- curean world or whether the character means to assert that no one would be called wicked. Perhaps the sense is that a man who can drink with a woman out in the open has no need for wicked love aﬀairs that require stealth and deception.16 Is this hedonist the murderer of the title? Could the Epicurean be the victim? e comic Epicureans seem generally to have been hilariously decadent, rather than sinister, but certainty is impossible. As his next example of a dramatist who hauls out the Epicureans when satirizing pleasure seekers, Athenaeus cites Hegesippos’ comedy e Buddies (Φι- λεταίροι), or e Men Who Were Fond of eir Comrades.17 Once again, neither speaker nor context is specified.

16. e adjective ἄτοπος, “out of place” or “wicked,” appears frequently as a modifier of ἡδονή in Hellenistic and later Greek sources, where “unnatural pleasure” is the sense (e.g., Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea 1149a: πρὸς ἀφροδισίων ἄτοπον ἡδονήν). In the late second or early third century CE, Aelian (Varia historia 9.12) claims that Epicureans were expelled for corrupting the youth with “out-of-place” pleasures: Ὅτι Ῥωμαῖοι Ἀλκαῖον καὶ Φιλίσκον τοὺς Ἐπικουρείους ἐξέβαλον τῆς πόλεως, ὅτι πολλῶν καὶ ἀτόπων ἡδονῶν ἐσηγηταὶ τοῖς νέοις ἐγένοντο. 17. e translation of the title as e Men Who Were Fond of eir Comrades is Olson’s (2008: 189).      23

[A]: Έπίκουρος ὁ σοφὸς ἀξιώσαντός τινος εἰπεῖν πρὸς αὐτὸν ὅ τι ποτ’ ἐστὶ τἀγαθόν, ὃ διὰ τέλους ζητοῦσιν, εἶπεν ἡδονήν. [B]: εὖ γ’, ὦ κράτιστ’ ἄνθρωπε καὶ σοφώτατε· τοῦ γὰρ μασᾶσθαι κρεῖττον οὐκ ἔστ’ οὐδὲ ἓν ἀγαθόν· [Α.] πρόσεστιν ἡδονῇ γὰρ τἀγαθόν (Ath. 7.279d)

[[A]: When someone asked him to say what the good they are forever seeking is, the wise Epicurus said that it is pleasure. [B]: Well said, O best and wisest. Indeed, there is no single good better than chewing, for the good resides in pleasure.]

Little is known about the dramatist Hegesippos, his corpus, or his date. Part of a speech by a vainglorious chef is the only other fragment that survives. As we shall see, more information exists for Bato, whose surviving corpus consists of six fragments (all preserved by Athenaeus). An essential stock character of the New Comedy was the mageiros, a brag- gart chef whose comic role centers on his propensity to flaunt his knowledge of cookery in contexts where he is out of place. The many fragments in which mageiroi appear reveal a recurrent joke involving a chef who “mistakenly be- lieves he can leave the kitchen, and who, furthermore, speaks of the kitchen in detail which is often irksome to his listeners, at least the listeners on the stage.”18 Pretentious expositions of the theoretical basis of the culinary arts are his forte. In book 7, Athenaeus asserts that “the entire tribe of cooks is full of itself” (ἀλαζονικὸν δ’ ἐστὶ πᾶν τὸ τῶν μαγείρων φῦλον, 290a–b), a declaration he follows with a string of long quotations of cooks’ speeches (from seven different plays). One formula in these scenes is the chef’s claim that other professed cooks cannot match his skills and in fact are unworthy of the title of true mageiros. In an unnamed play by Philemon the younger, the chef declares,

μάγειρός ἐστιν οὐκ ἐὰν ζωμήρυσιν ἔχων τις ἔλθῃ καὶ μάχαιραν πρός τινα,

18. Wilkins 2000b: 369. 24      

οὐδ’ ἄν τις εἰς τὰς λοπάδας ἰχθῦς ἐμβάλῃ, ἀλλ’ ἔστι τις φρόνησις ἐν τῷ πράγματι. (Ath. 7.291e–f)

[Some guy is not a mageiros just because he shows up at your place with a soup ladle and a butcher’s knife, or throws fish into the frying pans. ere is a certain wisdom [phronesis] involved in this business!]

Dozens of surviving examples of mageiros scenes attest to their frequency in comedy. Without claiming to present an exhaustive catalog, Hans Dohm, in his monograph Mageiros, counted fieen fragments from the earliest phase of cooks’ monologues, eleven that record a dialogue between two cooks, and thirty-five fragments of dialogues between a cook and a master or slave.19 One of the most memorable surviving speeches by a comic chef happens to lampoon the Garden, in an unexpectedly sophisticated way.20 Richer than a predictable joke on Epicurean bodily pleasures, the fragmentary parody preserves a significant moment in the early history of travesties of Epicurus. We know the scene only from e Learned Banqueters, where Ulpian (the fictional symposiarch) quotes sixty-eight lines from a play by the dramatist Damoxenus called e Foster Brothers (Σύντροφοι). In this particular play, the chef’s os- tentatious display trespasses into the realm of natural philosophy, “one of the more recherché areas of knowledge to be attempted by a comic mageiros.”21 Not surprisingly, this gives Damoxenus the opportunity to bring in Epicurus. Claiming that his knowledge of nature allows him to identify “causes and ef- fects” while other people do the actual cooking (102f), this chef claims Epicu- rus as his teacher and asserts that any decent cook needs to have read both Epicurus and Democritus, his predecessor in atomic science—and sure enough, this chef knows an Epicurean text or two. Remarkable here is that the joke on Epicurus goes beyond the obvious equation that links Epicureans with food, wine, or sex. Instead, the comic poet delivers a very specific parody of Epicurean vocabulary.

19. Dohm 1964: 88–92. 20. Dohm (1964: 161) presents Damoxenus fragment 2 as his example of the acme of the tradition of the mageiros character (“Höhepunkt der Kochrolle”). 21. Wilkins 2000b: 405.      25

[A.] Έπικούρου δέ με ὁρᾷς μαθητὴν ὄντα τοῦ σοφοῦ, παρ’ ᾧ ἐν δύ’ ἔτεσιν καὶ μησὶν οὐχ ὅλοις δέκα τάλαντ’ ἐγώ σοι κατεπύκνωσα τέτταρα. [Β.] τοῦτο δὲ τί ἐστιν; εἰπέ μοι. [Α.] καθήγισα. (5) μάγειρος ἦν κἀκεῖνος, ὦ γῆ καὶ θεοί. [Β.] ποῖος μάγειρος; [Α.] ἡ φύσις πάσης τέχνης ἀρχέγονόν ἐστ’. [Β.] ἀρχέγονον, ὦλιτήριε; [Α.] οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν τοῦ πονεῖν σοφώτερον, πᾶν εὐχερές τε πρᾶγμα τοῦ λόγου τριβὴν (10) ἔχοντι τούτου· πολλὰ γὰρ συμβάλλεται. διόπερ μάγειρον ὅταν ἴδῃς ἀγράμματον μὴ Δημόκριτόν τε πάντα διανεγνωκότα, μᾶλλον δὲ κατέχοντα [καταγέλα ὡς κενοῦ] καὶ τὸν Έπικούρου κανόνα, μινθώσας ἄφες (15) ὡς ἐκ διατριβῆς. (Ath. 3.102a–b = Damoxenus, frag. 2.1–16 Kock)

[“You see that I am a student of the wise Epicurus, in whose school in two years and barely ten months I ‘condensed’ four talents.” “What does that mean? Tell me.” “I made ‘sacred oﬀerings’ of them. He too was a chef, O Earth and gods.”22 “What sort of chef?” “Nature is the ‘Primal Source’ of every Art.” “‘Primal Source,’ you scoundrel?” “‘ere is nothing wiser than toil,’ and work is easy for anyone who exercises that saying, because he gets a lot of assistance. So whenever you meet a chef who has not read all of Democritus, and the Canon of Epicurus, smear him with dung and kick him out, like he flunked out of a philosophy school.”]

e peculiar phrase about nature as a “Primal Source,” or fundamental seed (ἀρχέγονον, line 8), sounds suspiciously technical, and the echo thrown back by the chef’s interlocutor has the ring of “What the hell is a ‘Primal Source’?”

22. e end of this line is corrupt. Gallo (1981: 87) assigns the next line to the cook as well and has the interlocutor interrupt only in line 8, with the echoing “‘Primal Source,’ you scoundrel?” 26      

Unless this is a case of a more generalized parody of the jargon of natural philosophy, an allusion to or a quotation of a line from a nonextant text of Epicu- rus or Democritus must be in play here. Although the word was apparently not common in Greek before the time of Philo and Galen (who use it frequently), it does occur in a fragment of Epicurus’ scientific predecessor Democritus, who uses the plural.23 e philosophical argument would correspond to the Epi- curean core belief that nature is not the product of intelligent design but is itself the creator. Although the term ἀρχέγονον is not to be found in the Greek Epi- curean sources, a probable replication of a term now missing from Epicurus’ lexicon may be found in Lucretius, who refers to nature as the “mother of things” (rerum natura creatrix, 1.629, 2.1117, 5.1362). For Lucretius, the lessons that nature—as creatrix—teaches to humankind are essential to the earliest development of culture: lightning gave fire to earth, and the sun gave people the notion of cooking (5.1091–1104); natural and human-caused con- flagrations revealed metals and how to manipulate them (5.1241–80); and the dropping of nuts and berries from trees taught people the art of sowing crops (5.1361–78). In comic parody, the Epicurean gi from nature is the art of fine cuisine. A more transparent spoof of Epicurean language lies in the chef’s claim that he “consolidated” or “condensed” (κατεπύκνωσα) a huge sum of money: “in two years and barely ten months I ‘condensed’ four talents.” e chef’s interlocutor cannot make out this strange terminology and demands a definition of “I condensed.” In response, the chef substitutes a verb with the same prefix (καθήγισα), as though it could be a synonym: “I made ‘sacred oﬀerings’ of them.”24 Part of the joke may be lost, but the interchange draws attention to the use of the word for “condensation.” By way of explanation of what it means to have “condensed” one’s money, the chef simply inserts another word that seems out of place. Here, at least one of the intertexts is not far to find. In the ancient collection of Epicurean maxims known as the Principal Doctrines, saying 9 teaches the following:

23. Democritus, fr. 5.50–51: διὸ καὶ παντοίους τε ὑπάρξαι χαρακτῆρας διαλέκτων καὶ τὰ πρῶτα γενόμενα συστήματα τῶν ἁπάντων ἐθνῶν ἀρχέγονα γενέσθαι. 24. e traditional role of the mageiros as a butcher whose realm includes sacrificial animals may be part of the joke.      27

Εἰ κατεπυκνοῦτο πᾶσα ἡδονὴ τόπῳ καὶ χρόνῳ καὶ περὶ ὅλον τὸ ἄθροισμα ὑπῆρχεν ἢ τὰ κυριώτατα μέρη τῆς φύσεως, οὐκ ἄν ποτε διέφερον ἀλλήλων αἱ ἡδοναί.

[If every pleasure were condensed [κατεπυκνοῦτο] into one pleasure that lasted and was present throughout body and soul, or in the most essential parts of our nature, the pleasures would not diﬀer from each other.]25

is saying comes to us out of context and may have been culled from a letter or longer work of Epicurus. Perhaps the context was a critique of the Cyreniac school (founded by Socrates’ associate Aristippus). e Cyreniacs were hedonists who claimed that all pleasures are the same.26 For an Epicurean, pleasures take many shapes and should not be treated as a single entity. In contrast to the Cyreniac stance was the Epicurean focus on good judgment: the wise choose uncomplicated pleasures, avoiding pleasures that one may regret later. As Epi- curus warns Menoeceus, the latter sorts of pleasures are the pleasures of profli- gates—such as reveling and lust—which are accompanied by turmoil that out- weighs the pleasures (Ep. Men. 131–32). e saying that immediately precedes the ninth in the Principal Doctrines reads, “No pleasure is a bad thing in itself, but the things that are productive of some pleasures bring with them troubles many times greater than the pleasures.” at the verb καταπυκνῶ was a peculiarly Epicurean term whose meaning would be opaque to outsiders is further established by the chef’s second use of it, several verses later in the same fragment: “is is how Epicurus ‘condensed pleasure’: he chewed attentively. He was the only one who knew what the good is” (Έπίκουρος οὕτω κατεπύκνου τὴν ἡδονήν, ἐμασᾶτ’ ἐπιμελῶς, εἶδε τἀγαθὸν μόνος ἐκεῖνος οἶόν ἐστιν, Ath. 3.103b = Damoxenus, fr. 2.62–64 Kock). Again, the comic reference to an allegedly Epicurean interest in food is predictable, but the reference to the Epicurean lexicon takes us to a higher level of parody. Cen- turies later, a send-up of the phrase “consolidation of pleasure” appears also in

25. My translation is influenced by the more literal translation of Inwood and Gerson (1994: 33): “If every pleasure were condensed and were present both in time and in the whole com- pound [body and soul] or in the most important parts of our nature, then pleasures would never diﬀer from one another.” Bailey (1926: 97) translates κατεπυκνοῦτο as “intensified.” 26. Bailey (1926: 353) attributes to Gassendi the observation that a response to the Cyreni- acs may be the context. 28      

Alciphron’s Letters of Parasites (second or third century CE). In a description of a banquet attended by various philosophers (all of whom misbehave), the amorous Epicurean embraces the harp girl and declares, “is is ‘the lack of disturbance of the flesh’; this is ‘the condensation of the pleasured’” (τοῖτο εἶναι τὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἀόχλητον καὶ τὴν καταπύκνωσιν τοῦ ἡδομένου, Alciphron 3.19.8).27 e work of the comic poet Menander, who was a close contemporary of Epicurus, was of particular interest to Alciphron, so it would not be unrea- sonable to hypothesize that Alciphron’s Epicurean is recycling a script of a play by Menander that also mimicked Epicurus.28 is would date the joke to Epi- curus’ lifetime, but tracing Alciphron’s joke back to Menander (or to Damox- enus, for that matter) cannot be more than speculation. It is possible that both Damoxenus and Menander spoofed Epicurean “condensation of pleasure” and that audience members who enjoyed hearing philosophical terms bandied about by slaves and chefs were equally pleased to watch the parodies develop from play to play. Probable echoes of other items from the philosopher’s lexicon appear elsewhere in the fragment from Damoxenus’ Foster Brothers, as when the mageiros mentions “changes and movements” (αἱ μεταβολαὶ γὰρ αἵ τε κινήσεις).29 While neither word is unusual, the word translated “movement” (κινήσεις) is more at home in philosophical and medical contexts than in the kitchen. Epicurus routinely uses it, for example, to describe the movements of celestial bodies (Ep. Hdt. 77; Ep. Pyth. 92), clouds (Ep. Pyth. 101), wind (Ep. Pyth. 105), and earth- quakes (Ep. Pyth. 105).30 Speaking as though both natural phenomena and music were his topic, the chef also describes his arrangement of meals with a pretentious and nonsensi- cal jumble of terms.

27. Another Epicurean locution is parodied in “lack of disturbance.” Compare Sent. Vat. 79: “e serene man is devoid of disturbance to himself or to another” (Ό ἀτάραχος ἑαυτῷ καὶ ἑτέρῳ ἀόχλητος). 28. Menander appears as a letter-writing character in Alciphron 4.18. A biographical tradition depicted Epicurus as a friend of Menander (Alciphron 2.4); and in an epigram attributed to Menander, emistocles saved his country from slavery, and Epicurus saved it from folly (fr. 95 Körte and ierfelder). For attempts to discover allusions to Epicureanism in Menan- der’s surviving plays and fragments, see Dewitt 1954: 52–53. 29. Dohm (1964: 173–81) attributes this language to the cook’s pretentious use of medical vocabulary. 30. Plutarch (Adv. Col. 1122b) quotes an Epicurean use of the word κινήματα, and Aelius eon (Progymnasmata 71) quotes a letter in which κινήματα seems to be an Epicurean word for “sensations” or “emotions.”      29

ἔστιν αὑτοῖς ἃ διὰ τεττάρων ἔχει κοινωνίαν, διὰ πέντε, διὰ πασῶν πάλιν· ταῦτα προσάγω πρὸς αὐτὰ τὰ διαστήματα καὶ ταῖς ἐπιφοραῖς εὐθὺς οἰκείως πλέκω. (Ath. 3.103a)

[Some of these have a four-part makeup, others five; still others associate in all ways. I bring them together as suits their particular intervals, and forthwith I weave them in appropriately with what follows.]

e word translated “interval” (διαστήματα) does not have a specifically Epi- curean ring to it, and the scholarly consensus seems to be that the term belongs to music theory.31 It appears frequently, however, in Epicurus in reference to various stages: the space between the worlds (ὃ λέγομεν μεταξὺ κόσμων διά- στημα, Ep. Pyth. 89) or the distance across which one views a rainbow (Ep. Pyth. 110). To return to the chef’s elucidation of “I condensed” (κατεπύκνωσα) in line 4 of the fragment of Damoxenus’ Foster Brothers, it seems that the chef glosses one eccentrically Epicurean term with another that was equally recognizable. At first sight, his explanation that he “sacrificed” or “made ‘sacred offerings’ of” the talents might look like a joke about the Epicureans’ alleged atheism (which will become a recurrent theme among the enemies of Epicurus, although many Epicurean texts affirm their existence). An outsider might laugh at the very idea of any Epicurean making an offering, but the travesty likely goes much deeper. e original spectators of this play would likely understand the offerings to be food offerings and the recipients to be not the gods but the “heroes” of the Gar- den.32 e explanation “I made ‘sacred offerings’ of them” (καθήγισα) is most likely a joke on Epicurean traditions as we see them in the will of Epicurus as recorded by Diogenes Laertius (10.18). e will (fictional or not) instructs the heirs to continue making the offerings (τὰ ἐναγίσματα) that Epicurus made in honor of his parents and brothers. It also specifies the many dates that future

31. Wilcox 2000b: 405; Dohm 1964: 181–87. 32. Pausanias 8.2.1 uses the same verb. ere Zeus may be the recipient, but the oﬀerings are food: Cecrops refused to sacrifice living things “but oﬀered instead on the altar the cakes the Athenians still call pelanoi” (πέμματα δὲ ἐπιχώρια ἐπὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ καθήγισεν, ἃ πελάνους καλοῦσιν ἔτι καὶ ἐς ἡμᾶς Άθηναῖοι). When prefixed with ἐν- (ἐναγίζειν), the verb is most commonly used in reference to hero cult rather than to sacrifices to gods (e.g., Plutarch, es. 4.1 and Sol. 21.1). 30      

Epicureans are to observe: Epicurus’ birthday on the tenth of the month Game- lion, the day in Poseidon that commemorates Epicurus’ brothers, the day in Metageitnion that commemorates Polyaenus, and, most notably, the twentieth day of every month (when all those who studied together would meet in com- memoration of Epicurus and Metrodorus). In later eras, the twentieth-day cel- ebrations were so well known that “twentiether” became an Epicurean epithet (as in Ath. 7.298d and Philodemus, Epigram 27).33 With e Foster Brothers, we have progressed from simple food jokes to a send-up of idiosyncratic Epicurean language and a parodic allusion to the long catalog of days in the Epicurean calendar that required communal dinners and oﬀerings to the dead.34 In an appealing commentary on this passage, Dohm takes this interpretation further and teases out of the cook’s explanation a more precise travesty of life in the Garden. He proposes that the cook’s announce- ment that he had made oﬀerings to the tune of four talents implies that he bankrolled the banquets, and he proposes that the whole passage quoted earlier presents the Garden as a culinary institute rather than a philosophical school.35 According to his reading, the cook also implies that it was easy for Epicurus to become a chef: practice makes perfect, and expensive dinners occurred regularly in the Garden.36 us the joke on Epicurean language is also a joke about the Epicurean lifestyle, but the lampoon of the lifestyle presents more than the clichéd “wine, women, and song.”

33. Diogenes Laertius (10:14) also records a tradition that placed Epicurus’ birthday on the seventh of Gamelion. On the confusion (ancient and modern) between the gathering on the twentieth of every month and the celebration of Epicurus’ birthday on the tenth of Gamelion, see Clay 1986 and Sider 1997: 152–53 and 156. Cicero (Fin. 2.101) and Pliny (HN 35.5) dif- ferentiate between the two. 34.Using similar vocabulary (ἐναγίζειν), the Suda (epsilon 2405, lines 11–16 Adler) also remarks on the Epicurean tradition of making offerings: οὕτω δὲ ἄρα ἦν ἡδονῆς ἥττων ὁ Έπίκουρος, ὥστε διὰ τῶν ἐσχάτων ἐν ταῖς διαθήκαις αὐτοῦ ἔγραψε τῷ μὲν πατρὶ καὶ τῇ μητρὶ καὶ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ἐναγίζειν ἅπαξ τοῦ ἔτους καὶ Μητροδώρῳ δὲ καὶ Πολυαίνῳ τοῖς προειρημένοις, ἑαυτῷ δὲ δὶς συσσιτεῖν (“Epicurus was so much weaker than pleasure that in his last moments he wrote in his will that offerings be made once a year to his father, his mother and his brothers, and to Metrodorus and Polyaenus [mentioned above], but twice a year to himself”). At PHerc. 1232, fr. 8, Philodemus seems to describe the sacred offerings for communal dinners with a verb with the same stem. See Clay 1998: 81. 35. Dohm 1964: 168. Gallo (1981: 87) translates the single word καθήγισα with the phrase “Li ho santificati in banchetti.” 36. Dohm 1964: 169: “Daher war es für Epikur leicht, Koch zu sein; denn (und hier ver- spüren wir noch Hieb gegen den Philosophen) er hatte ja bei seinen unzähligen Festen Gele- genheit genug, sich in diesem Handwerk zu bilden.”      31

e cook’s speech in e Foster Brothers demonstrates that Damoxenus had a knowledge of Epicurus that went beyond the most superficial stereotype. Is it possible that both playwright and audience had an ear for Epicurean language? Or would the parody have been funny even to spectators who did not know that it included actual Epicurean language? Certainty is impossible, but the fragment suggests that Epicurean language enjoyed some currency. When that language became well known or gained notoriety is another question. A firm date for Damoxenus’ play would add precision to a history of spoofs of Epicu- rus. Instead, the reference to Epicurus (who is mentioned three times in the past tense, in lines 6, 62, and 63) must be used as a means for guessing a rough date for the play. In any case, Damoxenus’ career certainly overlapped with the life of Epicurus.37 Having recognized the use of Epicurean language by Damoxenus’ mageiros, we can revisit the fragments of Bato and Hegesippos and discern an awareness of the way Epicureans wrote or spoke there as well. In Bato’s e Accomplice, the pedagogue has asserted that he has taught the boy “to live,” and the father re- joins, “is is living?” e pedagogue responds that pleasure is not to be found anywhere else “except from living well” (ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ζῆν παγκάλως). is sounds like a play on Epicurus’ dictum that one cannot live pleasantly “without living wisely, honorably, and justly” (ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ζῆν ἄνευ τοῦ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως, Ep. Men. 132 and Principal Doctrines 5). e context in the corpus of Epicurus makes it clear that the adverb καλῶς, whose most general meaning is “well,” more specifically here means “honorably”; but the pedagogue uses παγκάλως (“really well”) to refer to a life that includes drinking when the sun comes up. In Hegesippos’ e Buddies, someone makes the “Epicurean” assertion that “there is no single good better than chewing” (τοῦ γὰρ μασᾶσθαι κρεῖττον οὐκ ἔστ’ οὐδὲ ἓν ἀγαθόν). Damoxenus uses the same word in e Foster Brothers: Έπίκουρος οὕτω κατεπύκνου τὴν ἡδονήν· ἐμασᾶτ’ ἐπιμελῶς (“is is how Epi- curus ‘condensed pleasure’: he chewed attentively”). Why “chewing”? It is striking that both playwrights use the same word.38 It may be that an Athenian audience would have taken the words μασᾶσθαι and ἐμασᾶτ’ simply as colorless

37. On attempts to date the other fragment of Damoxenus’ work, see Dohm 1964: 161–62 and Gallo 1981: 79–82. Damoxenus was victorious at the City Dionysia (IG II2 2325.75), “probably in the mid-270’s” (Olson 2007: 408). 38. René Brouwer (2002) suggests that Damoxenus’ text should be changed to “kneaded,” but the parallel in Hegesippos suggests that the manuscript reading is correct. 32      

(but inelegant) terms for eating, but a meaningful echo seems more likely. I take the reference to “chewing” as another signpost for a lost intertext: the language stands out from its surroundings and signals that something specific (but lost to us) is being quoted, paraphrased, or recycled.39 e original may have been a text of Epicurus, or perhaps it was a memorable parody. It is also possible that we have failed to recognize an obvious pun on another Epicurean term. ese playwrights had more than a cursory knowledge of Epicurus, and it would be interesting to know whether it was common for many contemporary Athenians to be so aware of Epicurean language. Bato may have been excep- tionally well informed because of his own philosophical training. We can surmise this from an anecdote recorded by Plutarch that may also establish a date for Bato. According to Plutarch, Bato (if the commonly accepted text is correct) was turned away from the Academy by Arcesilaus (316/5–242/1 BCE, head of the Academy from c. 268).40 Bato’s oﬀense was his ridicule of Cleanthes (who died in 231). Arcesilaus was twenty-five years younger than Epicurus and became head of the Academy only aer the death of Epicurus. us Bato’s plays may date to the generation aer Epicurus, perhaps a few decades aer Damoxenos’ Foster Brothers. e means by which these comic fragments have survived provides a critical indication of Epicurus’ standing among outsiders. All of them appear in Athenaeus’ e Learned Banqueters, and most of them appear in one particular section. is is the point where Athenaeus has ceased to present the speeches of the dinner guests as quotations in a fictional linear time and resorts instead to an alphabetized catalog of edible fishes. Such was the fate of the philosopher who reminded Menoeceus that the eating of fish was not an Epicurean pleasure (Ep. Men. 131–32). e send-ups of Epicurus embedded in Athenaeus’ encyclopedia of types of fish are mostly quoted from the comic poets, but one is the author’s own depiction of the behavior of an Epicurean guest at the dinner. is dinner guest pounces on an eel so soon aer its entrance from the kitchen that no one else gets a taste. Here Athenaeus adds that this same Epicurean lit himself on fire by gulping down a flat-cake that was too hot (7.298d–e). is is not to say, however, that Athenaeus would exclude Epicurus from the ranks of the legitimate philosophers of Greek antiquity. It is almost exclusively the Epicure-

39. On the ways that an intertext becomes palpable, see Riﬀaterre 1981: 5. 40. Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur 55c.      33 ans who are treated as gluttons, but philosophers fare poorly in general. Hol- ford-Strevens has described Athenaeus’ diners thus: “the praises they utter of frugality, and their attacks on luxury, serve as a distraction from their attention to the details of luxury they discuss at length; and any awareness they feel of their own bad faith is deflected by attacks on the philosophers for their hypocrisy in eating at all.”41 One other text quoted by Athenaeus could potentially oﬀer further, earlier evidence of a sophisticated understanding of Epicureanism among contemporary comic poets. is is the fragment presented as a possible excerpt of a play by Alexis, a poet of the Middle and New Comedy and a younger contemporary of Epicurus. Alexis lived from around 375 until 275 BCE and thus would have died at the age of fiy when Epicurus was around seventy-five. A character at the dinner named Democritus prefaces his quotation of the play attributed to Alexis with the acknowledgment that he cannot vouch for its authenticity, as he cannot find it in the authoritative sources. Instead, he says that he knows this isolated fragment of the play from a work by Sotion of Alexandria, a Peripatetic philosopher of the second century BCE. In the play, which Sotion identifies as e Instructor in Profligacy—a title that suggests that Epicureanism received frequent mention—a slave named Xanthias delivers the following lines:

τί ταῦτα ληρεῖς, φληναφῶν ἄνω κάτω Λύκειον, Άκαδήμειαν, Ώιδείου πύλας, λήρους σοφιστῶν; οὐδὲ ἓν τούτων καλόν. (15) πίνωμεν, ἐμπίνωμεν, ὦ Σίκων, <Σίκων>, χαίρωμεν, ἕως ἔνεστι τὴν ψυχὴν τρέφειν. τύρβαζε, Μάνη· γαστρὸς οὐδὲν ἥδιον. αὕτη πατήρ σοι καὶ πάλιν μήτηρ μόνη. ἀρεταὶ δὲ πρεσβεῖαί τε καὶ στρατηγίαι (20) κόμποι κενὰ ψοφοῦντες ἀντ’ ὀνειράτων. ψύξει σε δαίμων τῷ πεπρωμένῳ χρόνῳ· ἕξεις δ’ ὅσ’ ἂν φάγῃς τε καὶ πίῃς μόνα· σποδὸς δὲ τἄλλα, Περικλέης, Κόδρος, Κίμων. (Ath. 8.336e–f = Alexis, fr. 25)

41. Stoneman 2000: 418. 34      

[Why do you talk like this, mixing up the Lyceum, the Academy, and the gates of the Odeion, sophists’ nonsense? None of this is any good. Let’s drink! Let’s really drink, Sicon, Sicon! Let’s enjoy ourselves as long as we can stay happy! Have a wild time, Manes! Nothing produces more pleasure than the belly. It’s your only father, and your only mother too, whereas personal distinctions—I mean ambassadorships and generalships— are empty boasts that ring as hollow as dreams. Some god will bring about your death at the fated time. All you’ll have is what you eat and drink; everything else—Pericles, Codrus, Cimon—it’s dust!]42

Here the statement that “[n]othing produces more pleasure than the belly” (literally, “Nothing is sweeter than the belly”) is clearly meant to represent the Epi- curean outlook. e slave’s disparagement of the military and political accomplishments of Pericles, Codrus, and Cimon would suggest that Alexis is aware of an Epicurean outlook that was encapsulated in the adage “Live unknown,” a saying that Plutarch would later treat as evidence of Epicurean depravity. e slave’s equation of aretai to “empty boasts” also echoes Epicurean language. (e word aretai, traditionally translated as “virtues,” is rendered in the preceding translation as “personal distinctions” because of the way the slave glosses it.) A reference to “empty virtues” or “empty personal distinctions” (ἀρεταὶ . . . κόμποι κενοὶ) appears in a fragment of a letter from Epicurus to someone named Anaxarchus (Plutarch, Adv. Col. 1117a). e problem is that internal evidence against the authenticity of the passage is as compelling as Democritus’ doubts. For example, the reference to the building in Athens known as the Odeion as a place for philosophical discussion may be an anachronism. Diogenes Laertius (7.184) records that the Stoic Chrysippus held his school in the Odeion, but Diogenes places him there at the end of his life, in the last decade of the third century, which would have been three quarters of a century aer the death of Alexis. Metrical and lexical

42. Translation by Olson (2008).      35 usage are equally suspect, and it seems more likely that Sotion’s attribution was incorrect.43 I have limited my discussion here to nonphilosophical sources because travesty and caricature, rather than doctrinal disagreement, are my focus.44 Yet the boundaries between philosophical discourse and satire are porous. e fact that Athenaeus’ apparent source for Alexis’ (or, more likely, pseudo-Alexis’) Epicurean-leaning slave was the philosopher Sotion suggests the possibility that the passage originated not in comedy but in a text with a more serious philosophical purpose.45 We may surmise with more certainty that we owe some of the later stereotypes, parodies, and generally sardonic remarks about Epicurus to the Stoic philosopher Chrysippus (c. 280–207 BCE), who became head of the Stoa in 232. Chrysippus was ten years old when Epicurus died, so his responses to Epicurus would coincide with the Garden’s second and third generation. By that time, the notion that Stoicism and Epicureanism were polar opposites may have been entrenched in both schools (though we only find it in full-fledged form in the works of Cicero and Seneca). A habit of ancient Greek biography was to develop stories about the deaths of philosophers that reflected their philosophies.46 (e story that Epicurus died in the bathtub may belong to this tradition.) e death of Chrysippus tells us something about the character of his writings: one of the anecdotes is that he died from laughing uncontrol- lably at his own joke (Diog. Laert. 7.185). Diogenes Laertius adds that Chrysip- pus “seems to have been an arrogant person” (7.187) and that his language was so coarse in one work in particular as not to be repeatable (7.187–88).47 e tone of Chrysippus’ writings that led to the story about his terminal

43. For a thorough discussion of the arguments against its authenticity, see Arnott 1955 and 1996. 44. For a discussion of philosophical sources, see Roskam 2007a and Roskam 2007b: 43–84. 45. Arnott (1996: 821) speculates that the author of the fragment (which in Arnott’s view was never part of a complete play) was a Cynic philosopher who “fabricated it as a bogus quotation designed to illustrate the enemy viewpoint in an anti-Epicurean pamphlet composed in the 3rd or 2nd century.” 46. On the multiple deaths of Empedocles, Heraclitus, and Democritus, see Chitwood 2004. 47. According to Diogenes Laertius, the philosopher Carneades (214/3–129/8 BCE, of the New Academy) called Chrysippus a “parasite” on Epicurus’ books because Chrysippus com- peted against Epicurus’ prolific writing. He adds, “If Epicurus wrote about something, Chrysippus tried to write just as much,” thus making his writing repetitive, unrevised, and with quotations that fill up whole books (10.17). Apollodorus of Athens had a similar opinion (Diog. Laert. 7.181). 36       joke and the report of his arrogance supplies a context for his claim that the source of Epicurean philosophy was Archestratus’ Life of Pleasure, an authoritative (but apparently parodic) geographical tour of Mediterranean cuisine that likely focused on fish. is fourth-century BCE work survives only in fragments, but the various titles given to it in antiquity—e Life of Pleasure, e Science of Dining, e Art of Cooking48—add to our sense of its general content. According to Athenaeus, Chrysippus referred to it maliciously as Archestratus’ Gastronomia or Gastrologia, thus implying that it had a pretentious tone that mimicked philosophical discourse (3.104b).49 Athenaeus’ character Ulpian says that Chrysippus called the Gastrologia the “capital city” of Epicurus’ philosophy (3.104b), and Ulpian himself identifies Archestratus as Epicurus’ “teacher” or “predecessor” (3.101f). Archestratus’ work takes the form of a didactic poem in hexameters that seems to have imitated Hesiod’s Works and Days (cf. Ulpian at Ath. 3.101f). Ulpian adds that the gluttonous among philosophers call this “lovely epic” their “eognis,” citing another traditional source of wisdom (3.104b). us Chrysippus’ accusation is double-edged: Epicurus’ teacher was a cookbook writer, and that cookbook writer was a pseudophilosopher. If Arche- stratus focused on fish (as the ancient citations imply), the identification of his work as the inspiration for Epicureanism is particularly pointed. From Timon and Timocrates (if an exposé by Timocrates indeed belongs to this early era) to Chrysippus and the playwrights of the New Comedy, the early caricatures of Epicurus and his disciples focus most persistently on food, drink, and sex. Less predictably, a distinctively Epicurean lexicon has already emerged as an amusing target. Sardonic references to and parodies of Epicurean vocabulary will become common in later centuries, as one can see in Lucian and Plutarch in particular, where unusual turns of phrase are presented as snippets of quirky Epicurean or Epicurean-sounding language. Epicurean language will also receive scholarly attention from Aristophanes of Byzantium (probably 257–189 BCE). We know this from Diogenes Laertius, who, while he asserts— defensively—that Epicurus’ prose was lucid, adds that “Aristophanes the gram- marian” criticized Epicurus’ idiolect.50 us, outsider commentary on the Gar-

48. ὡς Χρύσιππος ἐπιγράφει Γαστρονομία, ὡς δὲ Λυγκεὺς καὶ Καλλίμαχος Ἡδυπαθεία, ὡς δὲ Κλέαρχος Δειπνολογία, ὡς δ’ ἄλλοι Ὀψοποιία (Deipnosophistae 1.4e). 49. On the various titles, see Olson 2000: xxi–xxiv. 50. Κέχρηται δὲ λέξει κυρίὰ κατὰ τῶν πραγμάτων, ἣν ὅτι ἰδιωτάτη ἐστίν, Ἀριστοφάνης ὁ γραμματικὸς αἰτιᾶται (Diog. Laert. 10.13). It is possible that Diogenes presents Aristophanes’ critique as neutral or even positive, but Bailey’s translation (1926: 149) most likely captures the right tone: “He uses current diction to expound his theory, but Aristophanes the gram- marian censures it as being too peculiar.”      37 den begins by focusing on Epicurean modes of speaking and the allegedly Epi- curean devotion to the pleasures of the flesh. Later generations of anti-Epi- curean discourse will bring in Epicureanism’s Homeric resonances, the specter of women philosophers, the physical appearance of Epicureans, and a persistent questioning of the manliness of the Epicurean philosopher. ere is at least one moment, however, in the earliest history of the Garden when an outsider looking askance uses gendered terms to articulate his position. Once again, the Epicurean-friendly Diogenes Laertius found the line too clever to exclude. e story goes that Epicurus’ contemporary philosopher Arcesilaus was asked why, while students from the other philosophical schools sometimes go over to the Garden, Epicureans never leave to join the other schools. Arcesilaus replies, “Because men can become eunuchs, but eunuchs never become men” (Diog. Laert. 4.43). Although Arcesilaus’ joke has appeared as a punch line to modern discussions of the analytical shortcomings of Epi- curean training, his language is not inconsequential.51 e overt point of the eunuch joke may have been the alleged intellectual inferiority of the Garden, but the gendered aspect of his remark is a harbinger of things to come. Cri- tiques of Epicureanism freighted with sexual slur will become the norm.

51. Nussbaum 1986: 73–74 and 1994: 139. chapter 2 Odysseus and the Telos

“Brave boxers we are not,” nor orators, nor leaders of the people, nor magistrates, “but always dear to us is the banquet” and “every pleasing stirring through the flesh that is sent up to give some pleasure and delight to the spirit.”1 (Epicurean credo, according to Plutarch)

e archetypal hedonists of ancient Greek literature are the Phaeacians, the comfort-loving inhabitants of the mythical island of Scheria in Homer’s Odyssey.2 Some ancient readers viewed Odysseus’ last landfall before reaching Ithaca as a peaceful utopia far removed from the toils of the outside world. But to many, the land of the Phaeacians represented indolence and debauchery. e admiration Odysseus expresses for the Phaeacians at the banquet soon aer his rescue by the princess Nausikaa was especially problematic and appears in Plato’s Republic as a prime example of the dangers inherent in exposing the youth to poetry.3 Odysseus’ troubling assertion, spoken aer a decade of war and a decade of wandering, goes as follows:

1. ‘οὐ γὰρ πυγμάχοι εἰμὲν ἀμύμονες’ οὐδὲ ῥήτορες οὐδὲ προστάται δήμων οὐδ’ ἄρχοντες, ‘ἀεὶ δ’ ἡμῖν δαίς τε φίλη’ καὶ πᾶσα διὰ σαρκὸς ἐπιτερπὴς κίνησις ἐφ’ ἡδονήν τινα καὶ χαρὰν ψυχῆς ἀναπεμπομένη (Plutarch 1087b). 2. I first explored the intersections between Homer’s Phaeacians and the formulating of Epi- curean ideals in an article that focused on Virgil’s Dido in Classical Antiquity (Gordon 1998). is revisiting has benefited from Elizabeth Asmis’ comments on a dra of this chapter, as well as Adler 2003, Algra 1997 and 2003, Armstrong et al. 2004, Fowler 2002a, Gale 2000, Gordon and Suits 2003, Long 2006, Morrison 2007, O’Keefe 2001, Sedley 1998, and Russell and Konstan 2005. 3. On Phaeacians as hedonists, see Plato, Republic 3.390a–b (a passage that also cites Od. 9.5–11) and Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.531a–b. Kaiser 1964 outlines the ancient responses to Odysseus’ speech.

38     39

οὐ γὰρ ἐγώ γέ τί φημι τέλος χαριέστερον εἶναι (5) ἢ ὅτ’ ἐϋφροσύνη μὲν ἔχῃ κάτα δῆμον ἅπαντα, δαιτυμόνες δ’ ἀνὰ δώματ’ ἀκουάζωνται ἀοιδοῦ ἥμενοι ἑξείης, παρὰ δὲ πλήθωσι τράπεζαι σίτου καὶ κρειῶν, μέθυ δ’ ἐκ κρητῆρος ἀφύσσων οἰνοχόος φορέῃσι καὶ ἐγχείῃ δεπάεσσι· (10) τοῦτό τί μοι κάλλιστον ἐνὶ φρεσὶν εἴδεται εἶναι. (Od. 9.5–11)

[I maintain there is no telos more pleasing than when good cheer fills all the people, and guests sitting side by side throughout the halls listen to the bard, and the tables are loaded with bread and meat, and a steward drawing wine from the bowl brings it around to fill our cups. To my mind this [telos] is something most beautiful.]

In Homer, telos is an uncomplicated word with no deep resonance: a telos is an ending or a fitting conclusion. But by the time Homer had acquired classical and then Hellenistic readers, the word was the shared property of the philosophical schools. is semantic development led generations of Greeks and Ro- mans to take the preceding Homeric passage as Odysseus’ statement of the fulfillment or goal of life (telos in its later, philosophical sense).4 Because of the centrality of pleasure to the successful Epicurean life and because Epicurus had indeed aﬃrmed that the pleasure is the telos, the connection between Epicurus and the Homeric text seemed unambiguous. us Odysseus’ professed appreciation of Phaeacian pleasures became an Epicurean manifesto, and Epicurus became styled as a Phaeacian. e survey of early lampoons of Epicurus in the previous chapter demonstrates how incomplete the sources are. But uncovering the connections between Phaeacians and Epicureans is more complex and reveals more clearly how Epicurean histories and traditions come to us through circuitous routes. It is also more rewarding. e centuries-long discourse I explore here oﬀers a surprisingly substantive critique, one that engaged Epicureans in diverse ways. An exploration of the association of Homer with Epicurus highlights Epicurean as-

4. A one-word translation into English is not always adequate. See Inwood and Donini 1999: 684 (quoted in n. 6 of my introduction). See also Sedley 1999 and Ambrose 1965. In referring to Odysseus’ speech, Athenaeus uses the phrase τέλος τοῦ βίου, “purpose of life” (Ath. 12.513e). 40       pirations for the contemplative life in a calm harbor and provides, along the way, a sketch of Epicurean ethics that will be more nuanced than the preliminary outline I gave in the introduction to this book.

Epicureans and Phaeacians

e history of the conjoining of Homer’s Phaeacians with Epicurus and his suc- cessors in the Garden will always be fragmentary. Some of the important texts are scraps of charred papyri from Herculaneum. Still others survive only as intertexts running beneath the surface of ancient sources that consider Epicure- anism only tangentially and usually in an unfavorable light. Today the habit of referring to Epicureans as “Phaeacians” is familiar only to those well acquainted with the intricacies of Epicurean history. But the formula had wide currency in antiquity.5 Its most unambiguous statements appear on the margins of the classical canon, but once those sources are known, it is diﬃcult to miss the presence of an “Epicurus the Phaeacian” theme or cliché in better-known works, such as those by Lucretius, Horace, and Virgil. Particularly significant is Virgil’s Dido, whose Homeric ancestry and Epicurean credentials give her an important role in this story. Working backward in time from later to earlier texts, I start with the most obvious example, one that is hostile to Epicurus. It occurs in a work called Homeric Problems by a certain Heraclitus (second or third century CE; not to be confused with the famous Ionian philosopher).6 Revealing that Epicurus is styled as a Phaeacian because of Odysseus’ speech and not simply because Epi- curean stereotypes evoked images of Phaeacian enjoyment of leisurely meals and other bodily pleasures—including, as the Phaeacian king puts it, “changes of clothes, warm baths, and our beds” (Od. 8.249)—Heraclitus sheds the clear- est light on the apparent origins of the cliché. Having introduced Epicurus de- risively as “the Phaeacian philosopher, the farmer of pleasure in his secret gardens,” Heraclitus continues, “What Odysseus unwisely and hypocritically lied about at the court of Alcinous, Epicurus—as though the lies were true—pro-

5. For a short list of ancient sources that associate the Phaeacians specifically with Epicure- ans, see Bignone (1936: 269–70). DeWitt (1954: 365 n. 12) and Buffière (1956: 319–21) cite the same texts. More recent scholarship that describes the tradition connecting Phaeacians and Epicureans includes Sider 1995b, Asmis 1995, and Fowler 2002a. 6. For text and translation, see Russell and Konstan 2005.     41 claimed as the goal of life.”7 He then quotes three lines from Odysseus’ “telos speech” (Homeric Problems 79.4). Heraclitus also accuses Epicurus of purloin- ing his philosophy of pleasure directly from the mouth of Odysseus: ἆρ’ οὐχὶ καὶ ταῦθ’ ἃ μόνα τῷ βίῳ παρέδωκεν αἰσχρῶς ἀγνοήσας παρ’ Όμήρου κέκλο- φεν; (“And is it not true that the only things he offered the world were shameful unwitting thes from Homer?” Homeric Problems 79.2).8 Epicurus had been accused of thievery or plagiarism before, when the Stoic Chrysippus had said that the source of Epicurean philosophy was Archestratus’ fourth-century Life of Pleasure or Science of Dining, the geographical tour of Mediterranean cuisine I mentioned in chapter 1 (Deipnosophistai 3.104b). For Heraclitus, Odysseus’ best moments were as a warrior at Troy, and his praise of Phaeacia stems simply from a need to ingratiate himself to his potential rescuers.9 us Heraclitus concludes, sarcastically, that Epicurus mistook Odyssean lies for the purpose of life and “planted them in his sanctimonious gardens” (ταῦτα τοῖς σεμνοῖς κήποις ἐμφυτεύσας, Homeric Problems 79.10; cf. 79.2). Similar criticism of Epicurus’ affinities with Odysseus and the Phaeacians appears in the work of Athenaeus (fl. c. 200 CE), who attributes that view to a certain Megacleides (Deipnosophistae 12.513a–e).10 An earlier but related strain of this discourse appears in Lucian’s (or pseudo-Lucian’s) parodic Para- site, where a self-proclaimed freeloader named Simon quotes Odysseus’ telos speech but claims it as the credo not of Epicurus but of the parasite (the “art of parasitic” being Simon’s forte). Simon accuses Epicurus of stealing his professed ideal of pleasure from Homer’s Odysseus but never attaining it. Instead of living “the life of the Epicureans” in bed with Calypso or enjoying the true life of the slacker among the Phaeacians, Epicurus—Simon asserts—concerned himself with incessant inquiries into the shape of the earth, the infinity of the

7. Similarly, the second-century Essay on the Life and Poetry of Homer attributed to Plutarch asserts that Epicurus was “misled” by Odysseus, whose endurance through changing fortunes also misled Aristippus to praise poverty and labor as well as pleasure (Vit. Hom. 150).e expanded title of this Life of Homer is the title chosen by the recent translators (Keaney and Lamerton 1996). 8. e logic of Heraclitus’ vitriol does not stand up to translation. Buﬃère (1962: 86) translates, “Le peu qui’il a laissé au monde, il faut encore qu’il l’ait impudemment volé à Homère, sans le savoir.” 9. For discussion of Odysseus’ speech, see Most 1989. 10. ere is, however, at least one Homeric scholion (to Od. 9.28) that cites Epicurus’ “bor- rowing” from Homer with approval. See Dindorf 1855: 408. 42       universe, and the existence of the gods (Parasite 10 and 11). In Simon’s estimation, those were pursuits that brought Epicurus into conflict not only with humankind but with the universe itself. Mimicking Epicurean texts, Simon claims that the freeloader achieves what Epicurus wanted: the unburdening of the flesh and a soul free of tarache, or disturbance (Parasite 11; cf. Epicurus, Ep. Men. 132). Simon’s hackneyed presentation of Epicurean pleasures and his im- patience with Epicurean science accord well with Lucian’s attitude elsewhere: Epicureanism may supply some laughs, but so do the enemies of Epicurus. Moving back in time from the eras of Heraclitus and Lucian, one sees that the “Epicurus the Phaeacian” cliché spelled out by Heraclitus is one of Plutarch’s favorite anti-Epicurean put-downs. Plutarch (c. 50–c. 120 CE) does not explicitly label the Epicureans as “Phaeacians,” but recognition of the formula is essential to an appreciation of the rhetorical force of his On the Fact at Epicu- rus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible (= Non Posse).11 e central argument of this polemic is that the Epicurean life is ironically unpleasant because the Epicureans have given up everything valuable—from heroic acts to all intellectual endeavors, including reading—for the mindless pursuit of sensual pleasures. In the midst of praise for the satisfaction one finds in reading Aristo- tle and Homer, Plutarch inquires,

Who would take greater pleasure in eating and drinking Phaeacian fare than in following Odysseus’ tale of his journey? Who would find more pleasure in lying in bed with the most beautiful woman than in staying up late with the stories Xenophon wrote about Pantheia, or Aristobulus about Timocleia, or eopompus about ebe? But they [the Epicureans] banish all these pleasures from the mind [psyche], and they even banish the pleasures that come from mathemat- ics. (Non posse 1093c)

A more literal translation of the text reveals that Plutarch’s first question must be an intertextual rejoinder: τίς δ’ ἂν φάγοι πεινῶν καὶ πίοι διψῶν τὰ Φαιάκων ἥδιον ἢ διέλθοι τὸν Ὁδυσσέως ἀπόλογον τῆς πλάνης; (“Who would eat while hungering and drink while thirsting the stuﬀ of the Phaeacians with more pleasure than he would follow Odysseus’ tale of his journey?”). e awk-

11. I refer to the “outer speaker” in a given essay as “Plutarch” because his voice, though it may be fictive in some ways, seems to be “grounded on the historical author,” as Morrison (2006: 35) has written of the voices of “Horace” and “Callimachus.”     43 ward language here is an example of what Michael Riﬀaterre has called “agram- maticalités,” textual ripples or anomalies that leave behind clues to lost intertexts.12 us the obtrusive participles (“hungering” and “thirsting”) mark Plutarch’s quotation or imitation of a lost Epicurean text, perhaps one that proclaimed that food and drink provide genuine pleasure only to the hungry and thirsty (cf. Ep. Men. 131). e odd and apparently allusive or borrowed phrase “the stuﬀ of the Phaeacians” (τὰ Φαιάκων) also sounds like the vestige of some other text. Plutarch’s second rhetorical question, which implies that his audience will concur that love stories are better than sex, is an anomaly. But Plutarch asserts throughout the Non posse and elsewhere in the Moralia that the Epicureans are sexual gluttons, an assertion that is at odds with the De rerum natura (4.1030–1287) and other Epicurean texts. Plutarch’s sarcastic mimicry of Epicurus and his condemnation of the supposedly Phaeacian pleasures of the Epicureans are even clearer elsewhere. At the beginning of the Non posse, Plutarch’s mingling of the Homeric with the Epicurean goes beyond making the Epicureans the perpetual dinner guests of the Phaeacians. For Plutarch, their sensibilities are so closely aligned that the voice of the Phaeacian king Alcinous and that of Epicurus are one and the same. us, in the opening chapters of the Non posse quoted in the epigraph to this chapter, Plutarch fuses Homeric with Epicurean quotations into a single ersatz Epicurean spokesman who proclaims in hexameters spliced with prose, ‘οὐ γὰρ πυγμάχοι εἰμὲν ἀμύμονες’ οὐδὲ ῥήτορες οὐδὲ προστάται δήμων οὐδ’ ἄρχοντες, ‘ἀεὶ δ’ ἡμῖν δαίς τε φίλη’ καὶ πᾶσα διὰ σαρκὸς ἐπιτερπὴς κίνησις ἐφ’ ἡδονήν τινα καὶ χαρὰν ψυχῆς ἀναπεμπομένη (“‘Brave boxers we are not,’ nor orators, nor leaders of the people, nor magistrates, ‘but always dear to us is the banquet’ and ‘every pleasing stirring through the flesh that is sent up to give some pleasure and delight to the spirit,’” 1087b). e two hexameter lines (ital- icized in my translation) in this macaronic “Epicurean” quotation come from a speech by Alcinous that was regarded in antiquity (as the Homeric scholia reveal) as a notorious avowal of Phaeacian sensuality:

οὐ γὰρ πυγμάχοι εἰμὲν ἀμύμονες οὐδὲ παλαισταί, ἀλλὰ ποσὶ κραιπνῶς θέομεν καὶ νηυσὶν ἄριστοι,

12. Riﬀaterre 1981: 5. Not necessarily a matter of grammatical error, an “ungrammaticality” can be a shi in syntax or register that signals an allusion or quotation. 44      

αἰεὶ δ’ ἡμῖν δαίς τε φίλη κίθαρίς τε χοροί τε εἵματά τ’ ἐξημοιβὰ λοετρά τε θερμὰ καὶ εὐναί. (Od. 8.246–49)

[Brave boxers we are not, nor wrestlers, but at fast racing—by foot or by ship— we are the best, and always dear to us are the banquet, the cithara, dances, changes of clothes, warm baths, and our beds.]

Between the quoted hexameters, Plutarch inserts his own editorial remark, and the third quotation—with its mentions of flesh, pleasure, joy, and spirit—must be an otherwise unattested fragment of Epicurus. Plutarch’s hostile formulation of this “Epicurean” text and his convenient excision of Phaeacian claims to excellence in running and sailing paint adherence to Epicureanism as a repudia- tion of “masculine” rights and duties. Additionally, in Roman culture (though perhaps not so much in Greek), their excessive interest in food and banquets would be construed as an eﬀeminate characteristic.13 An interest in baths, too, was suspect, particularly when later readers read the Homeric text with luxurious Roman baths in mind.14 ese are issues that will emerge more plainly in later chapters of this book. e Garden/Phaeacia formula as we have it here is clearly hostile, but perhaps Plutarch and Heraclitus are distorting a tradition that was initially friendly to the Garden. Norman DeWitt once proposed that the first to add Odysseus’ speech on the telos to the Epicurean canon was Epicurus himself. DeWitt (1954: 73) proposed a scenario in which Epicurus deliberately exasperated his adversaries by quoting the poet they most revered, a move “equivalent to quoting the Bible in certain circles in support of evolution.” Elizabeth Asmis, citing Epicurus’ apparent quotation of Sophocles’ Trachiniai as a parallel (Diog. Laert. 10.137), reminds us that “Epicurus was not averse to citing verses for his own ends.”15 In her view, it is “not implausible” that Epicurus had alluded to Odysseus’ telos speech, especially in light of the fact that both Plato and Aristo- tle had alluded to Odysseus’ proclamation on the telos.16 As we have seen, Plato had cited the Homeric passage as an illustration of insalubrious hedonism (Re-

13. See Corbeill 1997. For Plutarch’s qualified admiration of Rome, see Swain 1996: 135–86. 14. For epigraphical and other documentation for Roman opinions about the baths, see Dunbabin 1989. 15. Asmis 1995: 17. 16. Asmis 1995: 17, citing Bignone 1936: 269–73.     45 public 3.390a–b). Aristotle—citing the passage in a nonhostile way—omitted all of the lines Plato had cited, replacing them with the mention of the bard in the same passage (Politics 1338a 27–30). us, without attributing “any special insight to either Odysseus or Homer,” Epicurus may have been declaring the Garden’s position within a philosophical tradition.17 More recently, Don Fowler described the tradition as a late arrival, writing, “Vulgarly, the Phaeacians, and Odysseus in Phaeacian mood, were taken to be the precursors of Epicurus.”18 I suspect that Fowler was right, but I would add that the texts of Philodemus attest to the circulation of the formula in learned as well as in popular discourse. The best evidence for the lack of reference to Phaeacians in the original texts of Epicurus comes from Plutarch and Athenaeus. Given Plutarch’s frequent quotations of Epicurean texts, it seems likely to me that Plutarch would have quoted Epicurus directly if Epi- curus had ever made the outrageous (to Plutarch) comparison between himself and the Phaeacians. As it is, Plutarch sounds as though Epicurus’ enemies have found him out: despite the pretense of being a serious philosopher, Epi- curus is a self-gratifying Phaeacian. Athenaeus also had several opportunities to mention any connection Epicurus himself may have drawn between the Garden and his circle, and his failure to do so meshes well with the evidence from Plutarch. Although Athenaeus acknowledges the traditional linking of Phaeacians with Epicureans (Ath. 12.513a–e), he does not mention Phaeacia when he refers directly to Epicurus’ writings. In the lengthy discussion of types of symposia, Athenaeus frequently mentions Homeric models for symposia (including the Phaeacian gathering), and he mentions Epicurus’ nonextant Symposium in those same passages. But Athenaeus gives no hints that Epicurus’ Symposium alluded to or resonated with any Homeric scene. In- stead, for Athenaeus, Epicurus provides only the sharp contrasts with the Odyssey: Homer gives us the context for a symposium and stipulates who is to be invited; in contrast, Epicurus launches into the symposium without a prologue and thus presents a scene with no place or time. Furthermore, Epicu- rus’ Symposium is un-Homeric in that the gathering is attended solely by philosophers, whom Athenaeus dubs “atom-prophets” (προφήτας ἀτόμων, Ath. 5.187b; cf. 5.177b). While Epicurus’ symposiasts are flatterers and Plato’s

17. Asmis 1995:17. 18. Fowler 2002a: 82. 46       are caustic, Homer’s dinner guests temper their speech (The Learned Ban- queters 5.182a). I propose a middle ground: that Epicurus occasionally appealed to Homer for evocative expressions of a particular view of the world and that the analo- gies and allusions grew and took on new meanings among later Epicureans as they responded not only to disparagers of the Garden but also to the uses of Homer in other philosophical discourses, including the Stoic co-option of Odysseus as Stoic hero. Because of their staunch perseverance in overcoming their “labors” and hardships, both Odysseus and Heracles became—in the generations aer Epicurus—paradigms of masculinity and models for the archetypal Stoic (e.g., Seneca, De const. 2.1). In response, some circles of Epicureans aligned themselves with another Odysseus, one created not just by Homer but by enemies of Epicurus. Rather than a reflection of particular lines cited by Epi- curus, Heraclitus’ hyperbolic charge—that Epicurus stole his ethics from Homer—is analogous to Chrysippus’ sardonic claim that Epicurus took his philosophy from Archestratus’ Life of Pleasure (Ath. 3.101f and 3.104b). Hera- clitus identifies a loier source but characterizes Epicurus’ the as a gross mis- use of Homer.

Prudence and Pleasure

Although Epicurus may not have lived long enough to hear himself compared unfavorably to Alcinous, he certainly found the need to respond to disparaging judgments on Epicurean pleasures. As we have seen, in the Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus explains that Epicurean pleasures go hand in hand with phronesis, a term that can be brought into English as “understanding,” “wisdom,” or “prudence.” Because the language here does not echo Homer’s speech of Odys - seus—the two passages share no vocabulary save the word telos—I am inclined to believe that Epicurus is not aware of the Phaeacian/Epicurean comparison. Yet this passage resonates with the “Epicurus the Phaeacian” tradition, even if we are reading out of order, turning to Epicurus from Plutarch or Heraclitus. us Epicurus responds to—or anticipates—the claim that the doctrine of pleasure he “stole” from Odysseus is morally bankrupt:

Ὅταν οὖν λέγωμεν ἡδονὴν τέλος ὑπάρχειν, οὐ τὰς τῶν ἀσώτων ἡδονὰς καὶ τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας λέγομεν . . . ἀλλὰ τὸ μήτε ἀλγεῖν κατὰ σῶμα μήτε τα-     47

ράττεσθαι κατὰ ψυχήν. οὐ γὰρ πότοι καὶ κῶμοι συνείροντες οὐδ’ ἀπολαύσεις παίδων καὶ γυναικῶν οὐδ’ ἰχθύων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὅσα φέρει πολυτελὴς τράπεζα, τὸν ἡδὺν γεννᾷ βίον, ἀλλὰ νήφων λογισμὸς καὶ τὰς αἰτίας ἐξερευνῶν πάσης αἱρέσεως καὶ φυγῆς καὶ τὰς δόξας ἐξελαύνων, ἐξ ὧν πλεῖστος τὰς ψυχὰς καταλαμβάνει θόρυβος. Τούτων δὲ πάντων ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ μέγιστον ἀγαθὸν φρ- όνησις. (Ep. Men. 131–32)

[So whenever we say that pleasure is the telos, we do not mean the pleasures of degenerates and pleasures that consist of physical enjoyment . . . It is neither nonstop drinking and revelry nor physical enjoyment of boys and women nor fish or other oﬀerings of a lavish banquet that produce a pleasant life, but sober reasoning and searching out reasons for choice and avoidance, and banishing the sorts of received opinions that cause the greatest disturbance of the spirit. e fount of all these things and the greatest good is wise understanding [phronesis].]

Hints of another strain of this conversation survive in a fragmentary commentary on Homer by Eratosthenes, the ancient scholar and head of the library at Alexandria (c. 285–194 BCE). In a rebuttal to the dominant claim that Phaeacians were paradigms of indolence, sloth, and loose morals, Eratosthenes cites the passage in which Nausikaa first meets Odysseus. At that point, she says to her companions,

ἦ μή πού τινα δυσμενέων φάσθ’ ἔμμεναι ἀνδρῶν; (200) οὐκ ἔσθ’ οὗτος ἀνὴρ διερὸς βροτὸς οὐδὲ γένηται, ὅς κεν Φαιήκων ἀνδρῶν ἐς γαῖαν ἵκηται δηϊοτῆτα φέρων· μάλα γὰρ φίλοι ἀθανάτοισιν. οἰκέομεν δ’ ἀπάνευθε πολυκλύστῳ ἐνὶ πόντῳ, ἔσχατοι, οὐδέ τις ἄμμι βροτῶν ἐπιμίσγεται ἄλλος. (205) ἀλλ’ ὅδε τις δύστηνος ἀλώμενος ἐνθάδ’ ἱκάνει, τὸν νῦν χρὴ κομέειν·

[Do you think he is part of an enemy invasion? ere is not man on earth, nor will there ever be, Slippery enough to invade Phaeacia, For we are very dear to the immortal gods, 48      

And we live far out in surging sea, At the world’s frontier, out of all human contact. is poor man comes here as a wanderer, And we must take care of him now.]19

Athenaenus reports that Eratosthenes supported his favorable view of the Phaeacians by asserting that “it is impossible for Phaeacians not to be wise, since they are very dear to the gods, as Nausikaa says” (Deipnosophistae 1.16e). Bringing Eratosthenes’ reading of Homer to bear on the Epicurean tradition may be anachronistic—if he wrote before anyone made a connection between the Garden and the Phaeacians—but we know that Eratosthenes studied philosophy in Athens while the Garden was in its second generation. Eratos- thenes’ philosophic writings have not survived, and although he was reputed to have criticized some of the early Stoics, we know nothing for certain about his attitude toward the Garden.20 My sense is that Eratosthenes writes in dialogue with an early version of the “Epicurus the Phaeacian” tradition, though it may be that his defense of the phronesis of the Phaeacians influenced later Epicurean interpretations. At any rate, his adducing of Homeric texts to prove that the Phaeacians are virtuous anticipates the careful exegesis of Philodemus, an Epi- curean scholar discussed shortly. Athenaeus (to whom we owe the quotation of Eratosthenes) reports that Eratosthenes calls other witnesses besides Nausikaa; he also corrects the main- stream tradition on the words of Odysseus. Philologist though he was (and Sue- tonius reports that Eratosthenes was the first to call himself a philologus), Er- atosthenes’ commentary on this passage suggests that he assumed that the meaning of the word telos in Homeric Greek approximated the meaning that telos conveyed in later philosophical discourse. According to Eratosthenes, the true text of Odysseus’ speech on the telos is explicit about the decency and wisdom of the Phaeacians. In Eratosthenes’ version, Odysseus proclaims,

οὐ γὰρ ἔγωγέ τί φημι τέλος χαριέστερον εἶναι ἢ ὅταν εὐφροσύνη μὲν ἔχῃ κακότητος ἀπούσης, δαιτυμόνες δ’ ἀνὰ δώματ’ ἀκουάζωνται ἀοιδοῦ . . .

19. Od. 6.200–207, translation by Lombardo (2000). Quoted by permission of Hackett Pub- lishing. 20. On Eratosthenes and the Stoics, see Pfeiﬀer 1968: 152–70.     49

[I maintain there is no telos more pleasing than when there is euphrosyne, and wickedness is absent, and guests sitting side by side throughout the halls listen to the bard . . .]21

Eratosthenes’ text replaces the reading now found in the medieval manuscripts (“when euphrosyne fills all the people”) with another version: “when there is euphrosyne, and wickedness is absent.” He glosses his unorthodox multitext reading “wickedness is absent” by explaining that the evil or wickedness that Odysseus speaks of here is “thoughtlessness” or “lack of prudence” (aphrosyne). e word euphrosyne (which I rendered as “good cheer” when I translated the canonical text of Odyssey 9.6) takes on a new tone here because Eratosthenes’ adducing of the cognate a-phrosyne (“thoughtlessness”) in his gloss shows that he takes eu-phrosyne not simply as “good cheer” but, more literally, as “good thinking” or “right thinking.”22 us Eratosthenes is implicitly drawing a connection between euphrosyne and phronesis.23 So, instead of serving as negative paradigms for dissolution or moral laxity, Eratosthenes’ Phaeacians are admirable for their prudence and wisdom.

Epicurean Inheritors of the Phaeacian Tradition

To later Epicureans, it may have been irrelevant whether the comparison between Phaeacians and Epicureans was first voiced by Epicurus himself or by later friend or foe. Once the formula becomes an established joke, the task of later Epicureans is to align themselves for or against the Phaeacians. In other words, the affronted Epicurean must either reject the “Phaeacian” stereotype as mistaken or embrace the lampoon and defend Phaeacian pleasures. It is possible that the life-size statue of a piglet discovered in the Epicurean library known now as the Villa dei Papyri at Herculaneum is evidence of the latter

21. Quoted by Athenaeus (Ath. 1.16d). 22. Plutarch alludes several times to the Epicurean use of the term euphrosyne (Non posse 1092e, 1097f). 23. Like Aristotle (Politics 1338a 27), Eratosthenes took euphrosyne in Odyssey 9.6 in a philosophical or intellectual sense. e Homeric scholiasts also consider this interpretation of euphrosyne. Ironically, euphrosyne is a word that a later Epicurean tradition uses to refer to specifically carnal pleasures. See Diogenes of Oenoanda, fr. 10, col. 4 Smith. Plutarch alludes several times to the Epicurean use of the term euphrosyne and suggests that they have co- opted the term for inappropriate use (Non posse 1092e, 1097f). 50       tactic in the case of another anti-Epicurean insult.24 Epicureans were often compared to a herd of gluttonous pigs, so the charming bronze statue that was buried by the eruption of Vesuvius may be the droll riposte of an unper- turbed Epicurean (serenity being an Epicurean virtue). If the library belonged to Philodemus’ circle, as has seemed all but certain to many scholars, the bronze piglet may even have been the emblem of the Epicurean school in Campania.25 Another Epicurean response would be to cite Scheria as an exemplum not of dissipation but of peace and friendly communion. Such an interpretation of the “Epicurus the Phaeacian” tradition is recorded by Seneca, who remarks that followers of all the philosophical schools look to Homer for their ideal paradigms:

Nam modo Stoicum illum faciunt, virtutem solam probantem et voluptates refugientem et ab honesto ne inmortalitatis quidem pretio recedentem, modo Epi- cureum, laudantem statum quietae civitatis et inter convivia cantusque vitam ex- igentis, modo Peripateticum tria bonorum genera inducentem, modo Acade- micum, omnia incerta dicentem. Adparet nihil horum esse in illo, quia omnia sunt. Ista enim inter se dissident. (Epistles 88.5)

[For sometimes they make him [Homer] a Stoic, who approves only of virtue and shuns pleasures and refuses to give up honor even at the price of immortality; sometimes they make him an Epicurean, who praises the condition of a peaceable realm that enjoys a life of symposia and songs; sometimes they make him a Peripatetic, who classifies the good in three ways; and sometimes they make him an Academic, who holds that everything is uncertain. It is obvious that none of these philosophies are in Homer, since they all are. For they are mutually exclusive.]

Seneca’s remark here strongly suggests that an Epicurean or Epicurean-friendly interpretation of the Phaeacian connection (one that highlights tranquility and conviviality) was a commonplace in the first century CE.26 I imagine that the

24. Naples, Museo Archaeologico Nazionale 5893, illustration in Sider 2005: 4. 25. See Sedley 1998: 65 and Gigante 1995; but contrast Porter 2007. 26. A sardonic argument over whether Odysseus was a better model for Stoicism or for Epi- cureanism appears also in Lucian’s Parasite (10–11).     51 tradition Seneca knew linked the Garden with Phaeacian groves and gardens (Od. 6.321–22, 7.112–33) and extolled both as utopian communities that offered safe harbor on the fringes of a dangerous world. e Epicurean position was not monolithic, however. Lucretius was familiar with but rejected the tradition that linked Epicurus with the Phaeacians. His dismissal of the notion that Phaeacians could prefigure the Epicureans appears in the famous proem to book 2, where Lucretius contrasts travails at sea with the pleasures of security on land. ere he pronounces certain pleasures as unnecessary.

ergo corpoream ad naturam pauca videmus esse opus omnino, quae demant cumque dolorem, delicias quoque uti multas substernere possint. gratius interdum neque natura ipsa requirit, si non aurea sunt iuvenum simulacra per aedes lampadas igniferas manibus retinentia dextris, lumina nocturnis epulis ut suppeditentur, nec domus argento fulget auroque renidet nec citharae reboant laqueata aurataque templa, cum tamen inter se prostrati in gramine molli propter aquae rivum sub ramis arboris altae non magnis opibus iucunde corpora curant, praesertim cum tempestas arridet et anni tempora conspergunt viridantis floribus herbas. (DRN 2.20–33)

[us we see how few things are at all necessary to satisfy our bodily nature— just enough to remove our pain—and so to provide us with many delights. Nor does nature from time to time require anything more pleasing; even if there are no golden statues of boys throughout the house holding fire-bearing lamps in hand to furnish light for nighttime banquets, and the house does not glow with silver or gleam with gold, and no paneled and gilded beams echo with the lyre, nevertheless, stretched out in groups on the so grass near a stream of water under the branches of a tall tree, people happily take refreshment at no great cost, especially when the weather is lovely and the season of the year sprinkles the green grass with flowers.] 52      

Lucretius’ survey of needless extravagances here alludes directly to particular Phaeacian pleasures. e description of the golden statues (DRN 2.27–29) is a close paraphrase of Odyssey 7.100–102, where Homer’s lamp-bearing “golden boys” provide light for Phaeacian dinners. e gold, the silver, the paneling, and the lyre reflect a composite of the dining scene described at the beginning of Odyssey 9 and the Phaeacian palace as Odysseus first beholds it Od. ( 7.81–99).27 e Lucretian description of the palace is overlaid with the post- Homeric moralizing vocabulary of excess: the house is oversized like a temple, the ceilings plated with a gross abundance of gold and silver (argento fulget auroque renidet, DRN 27; laqueata aurataque templa, DRN 28). Although most commentaries miss the broader import of this Phaeacian intertext,28 many note the close paraphrasing of Homer29 in DRN 2.24–28, and many readers have recognized in Lucretius’ description of unnecessary luxury the setting in which Odysseus addressed King Alcinous on the telos. us Lucretius eschews the Phaeacian palace and settles his ideal Epicureans on the grass outside, where friendship and the high branches of a tree oﬀer simpler and better pleasures than a gilded ceiling could provide.30 If the conception of Lucretius as an Epicurean “fundamentalist” is correct, Lucretius’ rejection of the Phaeacian aesthetic would be an indication that Lu- cretius found no praise for Scheria in the texts of Epicurus.31 But if the De rerum natura exhibits a strict adherence exclusively to the words of Epicurus, Lu- cretius’ fundamentalism is not so extreme as to prevent him from responding

27. Purple dye (later a catchword for excess) is less recognizable as a peculiarly Phaeacian ac- coutrement, but the superfluous purple coverlets Lucretius spurns in the next lines—as no more helpful to the sick than a “plebeian” cover (DRN 2.34–36)—also recall Arete’s purple wool and the purple bedding provided to Odysseus by the Phaeacians on his first night aer washing up on their shores (Od. 7.336–38). Purple dye is also abundant in Virgil’s Carthage (e.g., Aen. 1.700, 11.72–75), where it seems to be not only Phaeacian but typically Tyrian. 28. But see Fowler 2002: 82–109. 29. See Bailey 1947: 802 on line 2.25. See also Gale 1994: 111 (noting the Epicurean/Phaea- cian tradition) and Fowler 2002a: 82–96 (spelling out the Phaeacian allusion in detail). 30. Lines 2.29–33 reappear in De rerum natura in Lucretius’ description of the peaceful stage in the primitive history of human life (5.1392–96). ere, the context is the development of music, and the scene is of a group of people who (sated with food) lie on the grass listening to music. Aer the repeated lines in the vignette of primitive happiness break oﬀ, Lucretius adds, “en there was joking, then conversation, then sweet laughter” (tum ioca, tum sermo, tum dulces esse cachinni / consuerant, 5.1397). 31. On Lucretius as Epicurean fundamentalist, see Sedley 1998: 71 and Sedley’s third chapter in general.     53 to contemporary debate, for he clearly knows that the Epicureans have been compared to Phaeacians. Not all first-century Epicureans, however, were so concerned to distinguish Phaeacian from Epicurean pleasures.32 Philodemus (c. 110–c. 40/35 BCE), the other eminent Epicurean philosopher-poet of that era and a central figure in an Epicurean school based in the bay of Naples, turned oen to the Phaeacians. His departures from Lucretius are especially interesting in light of the recent discovery that Philodemus wrote a polemic against a rival but apparently contemporary Epicurean school.33 In scholarly texts recovered from the Villa dei Papyri at Herculaneum, Philodemus writes admiringly (and perhaps apologetically) of the Phaeacians, and in a poem preserved for us in the Greek Anthology, he playfully accepts the Epicurean/Phaeacian cliché. e poem invites Piso (apparently L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, consul in 58 BCE, a figure to whom I shall return in chapter 4) for a modest meal in celebration of an “Epicurus day” (the twentieth of each month):34

αὔριον εἰς λιτήν σε καλιάδα, φίλτατε Πείσων, ἐξ ἐνάτης ἕλκει μουσοφιλὴς ἕταρος, εἰκάδα δειπνίζων ἐνιαύσιον: εἰ δ’ ἀπολείψεις οὔθατα καὶ Βρομίου χιογενῆ πρόποσιν, ἀλλ’ ἑτάρους ὄψει παναληθέας, ἀλλ’ ἐπακούσῃ Φαιήκων γαίης πουλὺ μελιχρότερα: ἢν δέ ποτε στρέψῃς καὶ ἐς ἡμέας ὄμματα, Πείσων, ἄξομεν ἐκ λιτῆς εἰκάδα πιοτέρην.

[Tomorrow, friend Piso, your muse-loving comrade drags you to his modest digs at three in the aernoon, feeding you at your annual visit to the Twentieth. If you will miss udders and Bromian wine mis en bouteilles in Chios, yet you will see faithful comrades, yet you will hear things far sweeter than the land of

32. See Fowler 2002a: 95–96 n. 19. 33. Delattre 1996 and 1997. 34. On the ancient and modern confusion between the monthly gathering on the twentieth and the celebration of Epicurus’ birthday, see Clay 1986 and Sider 1997: 152–53 and 156. Gi- gante (as translated by Obbink [1995: 81]) explains the confusion by placing Epicurus’ birthday on the twentieth of Gamelion and writes that the dinner of the poem occurs in the month of Gamelion and thus celebrates not only the monthly Epicurean “Twentieth” but also Epicu- rus’ birthday. 54      

the Phaeacians. And if you ever turn an eye to us too, Piso, instead of a modest Twentieth feast we shall lead a richer one.]35

By refusing to align the Phaeacians with luxury or excess, Philodemus dely re- deems the Phaeacian/Epicurean stereotype. He links Scheria instead with poetry and the most basic Epicurean pleasures. us the Phaeacian pleasures em- phasized by Plutarch (wine and food) are crowded out by two crucial Phaeacian pleasures also lauded by Odysseus: friendship and listening to the bard. e reference to the Phaeacians promises Piso that he will receive “the combined pleasures of poetry and Epicurean companions,” as David Sider has put it.36 No paradox is implied: the misconception that poetry and the Garden are intrinsically incompatible has deeper roots in anti-Epicurean polemic than in Epi- curean reservations about traditional education.37 If Philodemus’ poem was thus the inspiration for Catullus 13 and the other poems of the “mini-genre” of the invitation poem in Roman poetry, as claimed by many scholars, Epigram 27 had a wide circulation.38 Epicurean enjoyment of poetry reappears in Philodemus’ essay On the Good King according to Homer, a fragmentary and apparently in-house work also addressed to Piso. ere Philodemus praises the Phaeacians for listening attentively when Demodocus and Odysseus recite their tales. is detail may be revealing of Philodemus’ attitude toward contemporary banqueting; perhaps he is oﬀering an Epicurean corrective to the less decorous dining habits of his Roman contemporaries. In any case, Philodemus contrasts the Phaeacians’ appropriate behavior with the excesses of Penelope’s suitors. Perhaps defensively, Philodemus defends Demodocus’ choice of the (oen condemned) story of Ares and Aphrodite, praises Alcinous as a good king who knows how to achieve peace, and challenges the hackneyed notion of the allegedly lazy, eﬀete, and self-indulgent Phaeacian.39 Momigliano described this essay as an Epicurean

35. Epigram 27 Sider = Palatine Anthology 11.44 = 22 Gow and Page, translation by Sider (1997: 152), with modifications. 36. Sider 1995: 47. 37. See the following discussion in text and Clay 1995, Asmis 1995, Sider 1995, and Wigod- sky 1995. 38. Sider 1997: 153. See Gowers 1993, chapter 4, “Invitation poems”; Gigante 2003: 24; Arm- strong 2004: 4. Sider points out that Philodemus’ epigram did not necessarily predate Catullus 13. 39. See Asmis 1991: 37 and 41 and Sider 1991: 50. Jufresa (1982; which I know only from Sider’s reference [1997, 160]) argues that the Good King presents the Phaeacians “as the model of a Utopian Epicurean community.”     55

“appeal to moderation” that argues that the foundation of the ideal king’s throne is “[n]ot fear, but love.”40 Philodemus’ assertions about the Phaeacian government’s aspirations for peace and the usefulness of Phaeacian exercises for military readiness also draw attention to Philodemus’ Roman context. As Fowler put it, Philodemus “assimilates the [Phaeacian] society to an idealized version of the Roman state enjoying the kind of otium that Cicero, rather than Epicurus or L[ucretius], promoted.”41 Horace takes yet another approach. Scholarly positions on Horace’s friendliness or hostility toward Epicureanism are diverse, depending as they do on each reader’s estimation of the poet’s “sincerity,” tone, and ironic self-eﬀace- ment.42 Readers of all persuasions, however, should recognize traces of the “Epicurus the Phaeacian” tradition in three poems of the first book of Horace’s Epistles. In my reading, these epistles meet the slur head-on by aﬃrming sardonically that the Epicureans are indeed a herd of well-fed and self-indulgent Phaeacians; Horace should know, for he is one of them. First, one poem begins with the claim that Homer can teach correct living “more clearly and better than Chrysippus or Crantor”—Stoic and Academic philosophers, respectively (Epistles 1.1.4). en Horace contrasts these models that can be learned from Homer with the baser and (implicitly) “Epicurean” models that “Horace” and his friends prefer:

nos numerus sumus et fruges consumere nati, sponsi Penelopae, nebulones, Alcinoique in cute curanda plus aequo operata iuventus, cui pulchrum fuit in medios dormire dies et ad strepitum citharae cessantem ducere somnum. (Epistles 1.2.27–31)

40. Momigliano 1941: 153. 41. Fowler 2002a: 95 n. 19. 42. Harrison (1995: 47), who describes a late twentieth-century scholarly consensus that painted Horace as “an independent purveyer of familiar ethical generalizations,” argues that Horace’s engagement with philosophy (including Stoicism and Epicureanism) was in fact both serious and deep. Another important dissenter from the communis opinio is Ferri (1993: 84–94), who treats Horace’s Epistles as a response to Lucretius. More recently, Morrison (2007: 129) has described the “recommendations, doubts, backsliding, and progress of ‘Ho- race’ in Epistles i,” aspects he regards as firm indications of the seriousness of Horace’s interrogation of Epicureanism. 56      

[We’re mere numbers, simple eaters of earth’s substance, we are Penelope’s wasteful suitors and Alcinous’s young men, indecently busy at grooming their hides. A good life to them meant snoozing until aernoon, enjoying a lazy sleep, lulled by a cithara.]43

In one fragment, the Epicurean Philodemus also finds something to admire in the habits of Penelope’s suitors,44 but I take the suitors’ presence here as Horat- ian embellishment of anti-Epicurean polemic. Elsewhere in the same book, a poem ostensibly about the search for a bathing spot with amenities asks whether a particular location oﬀers fine seafood and game, “so I can thence return home fat, and as a Phaeacian” (pinguis ut inde domum possim Phaeaxque reverti, Epistles 1.15.24). Confirmation that fat Phaeacians with well-tended hides (cf. in cute curanda in Epistles 1.2.29) are Epicurean doppelgängers appears at the end of another epistle:

me pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute vises cum ridere voles Epicuri de grege porcum. (1.4.15–16)

[When you need a laugh, come visit me— fat, buﬀed, and well oiled—a pig from Epicurus’ herd.]

Horace freely appropriates the Phaeacian tradition along with other currents of anti-Epicurean discourse. He even turns Lucretius against himself: Horace’s reference to Phaeacian grooming habits (cute curanda, 1.2.29; bene curata cute, 1.4.15–16) must be a travesty of Lucretius’ corpora curant (“they take refreshment” or “attend the body,” DRN 2.31), a phrase Lucretius uses in his acclama- tion of Epicurean (and, in the context, non-Phaeacian) pleasures. While Ho- race professedly aligns himself with a version of Epicureanism based on the sort of lampoon later epitomized by Plutarch, his tone marks these references to the Garden as transparent distortions of Epicurean hedonism. Ancient readers with a modicum of sophistication would know that Epicureanism values

43. Translation by Fuchs (1977: 54). 44. See Asmis 1991: 38.     57 cerebral pleasures over the physical, once essential bodily needs (food and shel- ter) have been met.45 e observant reader would also be aware that the tradition of ridiculing the supposedly Epicurean-like Phaeacians (and so the Phaeacian-like Epicure- ans) for rejecting literature in favor of food and drink also distorts the Homeric passage, for the singer of tales at the Phaeacian table is crucial to Odysseus’ statement of what is kalliston (“very/most beautiful”). Significantly, Epicurean (and Epicurean-friendly) sources that refer to the Phaeacian/Epicurean equation acknowledge the presence of the lyre or cithara (emblem of both epic and lyric genres) in the Phaeacian realm. us Seneca refers to “symposia and songs” (Epistles 88.5), and the “musical” or “muse-loving” Philodemus (μουσο- φιλής, Epigram 27 Sider) stresses poetics over comestibles. Even Lucretius is protective of Phaeacian pleasures; although the proem to book 2 presents Phaeacian pleasures as “unnecessary,” it does not exaggerate them, and the echoing cithara is included in the Phaeacian vignette. Horace, too, retains the cithara in his sardonic glance at Phaeacians and suitors (although for them the cithara is the accompaniment for sleep, not poetry). us far I have described how some Epicurean readings of Homer present (or redeem) the Phaeacians as participants in a pleasant—but not decadent— gathering. e most obvious “Epicurean” components of the Homeric scene are perhaps superficial: shared food and drink in pleasant surroundings. Fragmen- tary texts by Philodemus lend more seriousness to the analogy by calling attention to the Phaeacians’ fostering of peace and security, an interpretation also attested in Seneca’s allusion to readers who turn Homer into an Epicurean avant la lettre because of his praise of a “peaceable realm that enjoys a life of symposia and songs.” But this survey of the fragments of Epicurean approval of Phaeacian pleasures suggests that Odysseus’ speech on the telos has undergone a reassessment that, in turn, reveals greater profundity. Epicurean interpretations of a gathering where “good cheer fills all the people” did not have to focus exclusively on the superfluous (pleasant festivities) or the essential (food and shel- ter). More important is the Homeric scene’s potential as a précis of some basic Epicurean requirements for happiness: tranquil security, the consciousness of

45. Diogenes Laertius (10.137) contrasts pleasures of the body with the greater pleasures of the mind or spirit (ψυχή), a report that is consistent with Epicurus’ Ep. Men. 132. For discussion, see Gosling and Taylor 1982: 349–54 and Long 1986. 58       being alive at a particular moment, and the enjoyment of friendship and community. First, I would draw attention to the timing of Odysseus’ declaration, which follows his salvation from the sea. e presentation of Epicurean happiness as the state obtained by one who has obtained safety from the perils of the sea is a pervasive Epicurean metaphor. Witness Lucretius on Epicurus as a rescuer from the waves:

. . . quique per artem fluctibus e tantis vitam tantisque tenebris in tam tranquillo et tam clara luce locavit. (DRN 5.10–13; cf. DRN 2.1–4, 6.33–34)

[. . . who through his art restored our life from high waves and deep darkness to such calm waters and brilliant light.]

Conversely, the still, calm sea is a symbol for philosophical tranquility in the texts of Epicurus and his followers (cf. Fowler 2002a: 31). e image of a safe harbor provides a related metaphor. Philodemus, for example, contrasts the turbulent life of the Stoic to the serene life of the Epicurean who has sailed into a harbor (PHerc. 463). In the Catalepton (supposedly—or perhaps in reality— by Virgil), Virgil’s arrival to study with the Epicurean Siro in the bay of Naples represents the attainment of blissful harbors (ad beatos vela mittimus portus) where he may seek a life free from turmoil (ab omni . . . cura) (Catalepton 5.8–10).46 In DRN 2.13, the non-Epicureans’ striving by day and by night for power and wealth is described in an aquatic metaphor (emergere) that seems to echo Odysseus’ struggle with the waves for two nights and days (Od. 5.388–89, echoed in turn by Propertius 3.12.32; see Fowler 2002a: 63–65). Cicero point- edly presents Cato as the antithesis to the Epicurean in the proem to the De republica: although Cato could have chosen otium and tranquility, he chose instead—as civic duty required—to be buﬀeted by the waves and storms even into old age: cum cogeret eum necessitas nulla, in his undis et tempestatibus ad sum- mam senectutem maluit iactari quam in illa tranquillitate atque otio iucundis- sime vivere (De rep. 1.1). To an Epicurean, old age is a metaphorical anchoring in a safe harbor (Sent. Vat. 17.2–3). In contrast is the metaphor of the safe har-

46. See Gigante 1990: 190; Chambert 2004: 43–46; Clay 2004: 25–36.     59 bor as death, in writers who presuppose the immortality of the soul—an impossibility in Epicurean thinking (Plutarch, De tranquillitate animae 476a; Seneca, Ad Polybium de consolatione 9). Francesca Longo Auricchio (2004: 39–40) traces the safe harbor imagery found in Epicurean texts back to poetry by Aeschylus, Euripides, and others that predate Epicurus. But my own view is that the tragic poets are mediators of the Homeric tradition and that Epicure- ans (perhaps beginning with Epicurus) associated the topos with Odysseus’ release from toils at sea. But the telos speech also epitomizes other aspects of the most basic Epi- curean values. e friendship and fellowship that Odysseus found among Phaeacians (and that Epicureans find among each other) are not simply pleasurable in a banal or trivial sense. Rather, friendship is a necessary constituent of the happiness of the Epicurean philosopher.47 One Epicurean saying (probably a quotation from an epistle of Epicurus) uses a striking metaphor: “Friend- ship dances around the world, urging us all toward blessedness” (Ή φιλία περιχορεύει τὴν οἰκουμένην κηρύττουσα δὴ πᾶσιν ἡμῖν ἐγείρεσθαι ἐπὶ τὸν μα- καρισμόν, Sent. Vat. 52). Another asserts, “Of the things wisdom acquires for the blessedness of life as a whole, far the greatest is the possession of friendship” (Principal Doctrines 27). Yet another says, “e noble person is engages most with wisdom and friendship; the former of which is a mortal good, the latter, immortal” (Sent. Vat. 78). According to Diogenes Laertius’ catalog of the traits Epicurus expected of a wise person, the wise will desert no friend and may even die for a friend (10.120). Conversely, one’s life can be overturned by a false friend’s betrayal (Sent. Vat. 56–57). As for our few wholly intact texts of Epicu- rus, the Letter to Menoeceus ends with the exhortation to study philosophy night and day—not just alone, but also with a like-minded companion (Ep. Men. 135). For a more expansive view of the ways Odysseus among the Phaeacians em- blemizes in concrete (if rudimentary) terms some of the Garden’s most hallowed teachings, I turn to A. A. Long’s recent synopsis of the teachings of Epicurus. Long describes the Epicurean stance in the following terms: “Subjectivity, moment-by-moment consciousness, being at peace in the world, what it feels like to be securely happy—these are the fundamental starting-points and concerns of Epicureanism. As to the sources of the Epicurean’s trouble-free subjectivity, these are, in essence, threefold: a like-minded community of mutually support-

47. On Epicurean friendship, see Long 2006, O’Keefe 2001, and Algra 1997 and 2003. 60       ive friends, intelligence (phronesis) in managing the hedonistic calculus for daily life, and atomistic science.”48 Taking the Phaeacians as Odysseus’ “like-minded community,” we see that Odysseus has obtained one of Long’s sources of “trouble-free subjectivity.” I would assert that the second song of the bard Demod- ocus (on the sorrows of the Trojan War) leads Odysseus and the Phaeacians toward a measure of phronesis, or wise understanding, as commended to Menoeceus (Ep. Men. 132). For a deeper phronesis, we would need to accept Er- atosthenes’ emendation of Odysseus’ speech, which lends a more philosophical meaning to the euphrosyne at the table. But regardless of the amount of phronesis at the Phaeacian table as Odysseus describes it in his speech on the telos, one element is clearly lacking: atomistic science. To supply the missing exposition of Epicurean science, we must turn to Virgil’s Aeneid.

Virgil’s Dido and a Garden in North Africa

Virgil’s Dido provides the last and most compelling example I will examine here of the Phaeacian/Epicurean intertext. Although Virgil created her generations before Heraclitus wrote his Homeric Problems, Dido provides a fitting culmination because the connection between Homer and Epicurus is plainly elevated in Virgil beyond the level of cliché, reaching instead the status of vital paraphilosophical inquiry. Many readers, ancient and modern, have recognized that Dido makes her first entrance in the Aeneid cast as a new Nausikaa (cf. Aulus Gellius 9.9). Commentators since antiquity have also remarked that Virgil’s Dido espouses an intermittently Epicurean outlook, sometimes in the face of Aeneas’ apparent (but also imperfect) Stoicism.49 Some scholars go further, demonstrating that the Epicurean atmosphere surrounding Dido’s court is couched not just in the traditional language of the Garden but in specifically Lucretian terms.50 Here I present a combined approach that reveals how Dido’s Homeric credentials intensify her Epicurean attributes.

48. Long 2006: 202. 49. For Virgilian citations and bibliography, see Pease 1935 and Dyson 1996. Adler examines Epicurean and Stoic echoes in the Aeneid also but comes to conclusions very diﬀerent from mine. 50. Recent treatments of Lucretian language in Virgil’s Dido episode include Hardie 1986, Hamilton 1993, Lyne 1994, and Dyson 1996. Compare also Brown 1987: 142. Farrell (1997: 234–35) demonstrates that Virgil also uses Lucretian language to present an Epicurean point of view in the episode of Nisus and Euryalus in Aeneid 9. Virgil’s debt to Lucretius in general has of course long been recognized.     61

I shall start my analysis with Dido’s Phaeacian heritage. Aeneas has come to her aer nearly drowning in the sea, where he had declared while in the throes— like Odysseus before his rescue by Nausikaa—that warriors who die in battle rather than in the waves are “three and four times blessed” (Aen. 1.94–96; Od. 5.305–6). en Dido’s first appearance in the Aeneid (just before she agrees to help Aeneas) echoes closely the description of Nausikaa on the Phaeacian shore (just before she agrees to help Odysseus): both are compared to Artemis/Diana surrounded by her nymphs, and both embody the beauty and self-possession of the goddess (Aen. 1.498–504; Od. 6.102–9). Further accentuating the Phaeacian association, Venus herself had also played Nausikaa when she met Aeneas near the shores of Dido’s Carthage (Aen. 1.327–29 and Od. 6.149–52; Aen. 1.338–41 and Od. 6.194–96), and she stood in for the girl (Athena) who assists Odysseus (Aen. 1.315; Od. 7.14–77). Venus’ departure from Aeneas in that scene also gestures toward the story of Ares and Aphrodite as sung by the Phaeacian Demod- ocus: like Aphrodite in the Phaeacian story, Venus escapes to Cyprus, where she can enjoy the incense lit for her by the Paphians (Aen. 1.415–17; Od. 8.362–66).51 e goddesses in both scenes conceal the hero with mist so that he can make his way unmolested to safety (Aeneas to Dido, Odysseus to Nausikaa’s mother Arete). en the Homeric reminiscences reverberate with an Epicurean voice. As Aeneas reaches Dido, she welcomes the Trojans in friendly language that has rightly been recognized as not only Epicurean but Lucretian: solvite corde me- tum, Teucri, secludite curas (Aen. 1.562).52 is echoes a phrase in Lucretius’ programmatic description of the Epicurean mind: “far removed from worry and fear” (cura semota metuque, DRN 2.19). at description appears in the proem to the second book of De rerum natura, a passage with multiple Odyssean and Phaeacian references, as we shall see. Further Lucretian vocabulary also appears in the next lines, thus amplifying the Epicurean overtones: res dura; novitas; genus Aeneadum, tantum incendia belli.53 But Dido’s entrance is only one sign of her Phaeacian past. Although this episode of the Aeneid rehearses a plethora of other Homeric and post-Ho - meric scenes, the Phaeacian elements in Virgil’s Dido persist.54 Commentators

51. On Venus as Nausikaa, Athena in Scheria, and Demodocus’ Aphrodite, see Knauer 1964: 158–63. Knauer points out that Aeneas’ comparison of his (disguised) mother to Diana recalls Odysseus’ comparison of Nausikaa to Artemis (159 n. 1). 52. See Dyson 1996: 205. 53. Aen. 1.560-66; Dyson 1996: 206 n. 10. 54. On Dido’s “multiplicity” in general, see Hexter 1992, especially 337. 62       since antiquity have noted that Dido looks like Nausikaa; stands in for her mother, Arete; and speaks like her father, Alcinous.55 Dido’s banquet for the Trojans recalls the Phaeacian banquet hosted by Nausikaa’s parents, and when Aeneas tells his story there, he is following Odysseus’ precedent (Od. 9–12). Dido’s bard Iopas replaces the Phaeacian bard Demodocus.56 Like Alcinous in the Odyssey, Dido oﬀers her guest safe passage or, alternatively, the option to stay (Aen. 1.569–74; Od. 7.311–24).57 Close connections between Dido’s palace and the Phaeacian palace as described in Odyssey 7.100–102 introduce a particularly significant parallel. As we have seen, Lucretius had already expelled gold, silver, paneling, and other Phaeacian luxuries from the ideal Epicurean gathering (DRN 2.23–28). In a move that epitomizes one mode of Virgilian/Lucretian intertextuality,58 the Aeneid reinscribes such luxuries into the Epicurean/Phaeacian world, echoing the very language Lucretius had used to assert that Epicureans prefer simple picnics over Phaeacian banquets: fit strepitus tectis vocemque per ampla uolutant/atria; dependent lychni laque- aribus aureis/incensi et noctem flammis funalia uincunt (“A roar arises in the hall and they send their voices echoing through the great palace; burning lamps hang from the gold-paneled beams and torches conquer the night with their blaze,” Aen. 1.725–27; cf. DRN 2.24–28). Even the lyre the bard Iopas plays is golden (Aen. 1.741–42). Virgil’s reuse of Lucretian phrases here has aﬃnities with Horace’s travestying of Lucretius (Epistles 1.2.29, 1.4.15–16; DRN 2.31), but Virgil’s text creates more of a dialogue that reexamines the Lu-

55. See Aulus Gellius 9.9; Knauer 1964: 174 and passim; Clausen 1987: 15–26; Hardie 1986: passim. My summary here focuses on the correspondences between Virgilian characters and their antecedents; also relevant to the Phaeacia/Carthage analogy are the storms, invocations, and wrecks at sea that preceded the respective heroes’ arrivals, as well as the shade-filled, prosperous landscapes that receive them. 56. See Hardie 1986: 60–66. 57. Woven in with these Homeric strands is the memory of an earlier reincarnation of Nausikaa, the young Medea of Apollonius’ Argonautica. Apollonius’ tale of Medea’s divinely orchestrated love for Jason (who also makes his way to Medea enshrouded in mist) asserts itself frequently in the Aeneid, especially in book 4, which Servius (praef. in Aen 4.247.1–4) described as entirely Apollonian: totus hic liber translatus est de tertio Apollonii. In some respects, the character Medea may also be a precursor of the Homeric Nausikaa (cf. Reece 1993: 109–10). On Virgil’s mingling of the Homeric with the Apollonian, see Clausen 1987. Medea’s Phaeacian attributes are less emphatic, but the Phaeacians themselves (as Phaeacians) play a crucial role in the Argonautica. 58. On Virgil’s habit of quoting Lucretius in alien contexts and sometimes even reversing his Epicurean wisdom, see Hardie 1986: passim; Farrell 1991: 169–206; Dyson 1996: 204, with n. 3; Gale 2000: 4 and 125–27.     63 cretian stance. As in Virgil’s reconsideration of myths dismissed by Lucretius, the tone is not parodic but searching.59 e Dido episode can also be read as a revision of the tradition that was hostile to Phaeacia. Ancient and modern readers have questioned the friendliness of the Phaeacians, and Venus’ fear that the Carthaginians are not trustworthy (Aen. 1.661) echoes Athena’s and Nausikaa’s warnings to Odysseus (Od. 7.32–33, 6.274). At her first meeting with the Trojans, however, Dido delivers her quasi-Lucretian friendly greeting and then accounts for her people’s apparent lack of hospitality by attributing the Carthaginians’ wariness to their vul- nerable position as recent exiles (Aen. 1.561–63). Aer this, the Trojans suﬀer none of the apparent lapses in hospitality that Odysseus had met with in Scheria. Virgil’s refashioning of the bard’s song at the banquet also has something in common with Eratosthenes’ rereading (or rewriting) of Homer. As many commentators have noted, Virgil’s text is strewn with signposts that present Iopas in part as a new Demodocus, the bard of the Phaeacian banquet.60 But the Aeneid replaces Demodocus’ song (notorious in antiquity) about the love aﬀair of Ares and Aphrodite with a song of natural philosophy. In his commentary on this scene, Servius remarks that the elevated philosophical theme suits Dido’s still-chaste demeanor. 61 Meanwhile, as host of the banquet, Dido is not only the paradigm of Epicurean friendliness and hospitality but also a model of Phaeacian/Epicurean piety and prudence: she has just made a libation to the gods but barely tastes the wine (Aen. 1.736–37). Dido’s temperance is especially noticeable since Venus had suggested that wine has a role to play in Dido’s downfall (Aen. 1.686). As in the Epicurean tradition exemplified by Philode- mus and in the Phaeacian-friendly tradition exemplified by Eratosthenes, the pleasure in a Phaeacian banquet has less to do with the wine or the food (which receive little attention in the Virgilian scene) and much to do with poetry, friendship, and euphrosyne. But most significantly, the song of Dido’s bard Iopas brings to the table a crucial Epicurean component missing from all other manifestations of the conventional pairing of Epicureans and Phaeacians: Epicurean science. e Epi-

59. On Virgil’s reassessment of myths condemned by Lucretius, see Gale 2000: 126–27. 60. See especially Segal 1971, Hardie 1986, and Dyson 1996. 61. Servius ad Aen. 1.742: bene philosophica introducitur cantilena in convivio reginae adhuc castae. e Iopas passage is also heavy with intertextual rejoinders: Virgil excises an erotic passage that Lucretius had highlighted in the proem to De rerum natura 1, which, in turn, gestures toward the Phaeacian story by depicting Mars in the arms of Venus. 64       curean Kyriae Doxai 12 teaches that there can be “no uncontaminated pleasure” without science. Another saying that is probably culled from a longer text by Epicurus states, “Learning is not followed by pleasurable entertainment. Rather, [Epicurean] learning and pleasure take place at the same time” (Sent. Vat. 27). Most specifically, Epicurus’ Letter to Herodotus describes the tight connection between happiness and astral physics: “we must believe that ob- taining accurate knowledge of the causes of the most important matters is the point of natural science, and that happiness depends on the knowledge of celestial phenomena” (78).62 ese texts bring new meaning to the steady applause with which both Tyrians and Trojans respond to Iopas. Not simply an epic bard whose song has natural science as its unexpected new subject matter, Virgil’s Iopas is a singer of philosophical poetry in the tradition of Lucretius. e programmatic summary with which Virgil lays out the content of Iopas’ song echoes the programmatic summaries and recapitulations that appear at the beginning of every book of the De rerum natura.63 As is regular in the Lu- cretian synopses, the summary of Iopas’ song is articulated by a series of prominent indirect questions (in bold here):

Hic canit errantem lunam solisque labores, Unde hominum genus et pecudes, unde imber et ignes, Arcturum pluviasque Hyadas geminosque Triones, Quid tantum Oceano properent se tingere soles Hiberni, vel quae tradis mora noctibus obstet.

Lombardo’s translation best captures the grand didactic style of the song and its intertwining of pleasure with science.

He sang Of the wandering moon and the sun’s toils, Of the origin of human and animal kind, Of how rain falls and why lightning flashes,

62. e full text is as follows: Καὶ μὴν καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν κυριωτάτων αἰτίαν ἐξακριβῶσαι υσιολογίας ἔργον εἶναι δεῖνομίζειν, καὶ τὸ μακάριον ἐν τῇ περὶ μετεώρων γνώσει ἐνταῦθα πε- πτωκέναι καὶ ἐν τῷ τίνες φύσεις αἱ θεωρούμεναι κατὰ τὰ μετέωρα ταυτί, καὶ ὅσα συγγενῆ πρὸς τὴν εἰς τοῦτο ἀκρίβειαν· 63. DRN 1.54–61, 2.62–66, 3.31–40 (where the indirect questions refer back to lessons just presented).     65

Of Arcturus, the Bears, and the misty Hyades, Of why the winter sun rushes down to Ocean, And why long winter nights are slow to end.64

As though to bestow authorial approval on Iopas’ words, the text here not only echoes Lucretius but repeats verbatim Virgil’s own echoes of Lucretius in the Georgics (Aen. 1.745–46 = Georgics 2.481–82).65 us Iopas’ song fills out our list of prerequisites for Epicurean happiness: friendship, phronesis, and natural science (the latter being the broader category that includes Long’s study of the atom). Julia Dyson has also drawn attention to “an odd detail for which there is no known epic model”: Dido touches the vessel “as far as the mouth” (summo tenus attigit ore, Aen. 1.737). As Dyson points out, the peculiar turn of phrase becomes more meaningful when we have Lucretius before us. Here the crucial intertext (occurring twice in Lucretius) is the honey on the cup that tricks children into drinking medicine (or, metaphorically, potential Epicureans into learning philosophy). e children are tricked labrorum tenus (“as far as the lips”) into drinking the bitter liquid (perpotet amarum . . . laticem, DRN 1.940–41, 4.11–25). But aer Dido touches the wine “as far as the lips,” she then drinks not wine but love (longumque bibebat amorem, Aen. 1.749). Here Virgil recalls a pun that occurs in Lucretius as well as in the Eclogues, where amarus (“bitter”) plays on amor (“love”).66 Although food and wine receive scant attention in this scene, the love Dido drinks is a dangerous poison. Since Venus and Juno have contrived to send Amor to Dido, some readers take Dido’s subsequent downfall as Virgilian condemnation of Dido’s later crypto-Epicurean assertion that the gods do not meddle in human lives: she utters with evident sarcasm, scilicet is superis labor est, ea cura quietos sollictat (“Surely this toil concerns the gods, this concern troubles their repose,” Aen. 4.379–80). Yet a convinced Epi- curean might read Dido’s demise not as confirmation that her Epicurean notions are wrong but as fulfillment of Lucretius’ warnings against the horrible perils of erotic love. If the divine machinery of the Aeneid can be said to prove Epicurus wrong, the description of Dido’s passion can be said to prove Lucretius

64. Lombardo 2005: 26. 65. See Hardie 1986: 33–51. See also Gale 1995: 36–61. 66. For example, amarus in DRN 1.940 plays on amor in DRN 1.924, and see Eclogues 3.109–10. 66       right.67 e language that describes Dido’s lovesickness is strongly evocative of the attack against passion in book 4 of Lucretius. As commentators have noted, Dido’s sleeplessness, as described in the opening of Aeneid 4 (lines 1 and 5), is the result of “worry” or “disturbance,” a condition that Epicurus calls tarache and that Lucretius calls cura.68 us the vocabulary of Dido’s insomnia confirms the repeated theme of Lucretius’ polemic against erotic love: passion is bound to result in such cura and thus deprives the would-be philosopher of Epicurean ataraxia (“tranquillity”). Furthermore, Lucretius (notoriously) describes love and sex as a sort of “wound” (uulnus, DRN 4.1049, 1070, 1120), the very image with which book 4 of the Aeneid opens: uulnus alit uenis (“she feeds the wound with her blood,” Aen. 4.2; cf. uiuit sub pectore uulnus, “the wound survives in her breast,” 4.67). Even Virgil’s description of Dido’s obsession with the image and voice of Aeneas (Aen. 4.83–84) evokes Lucretius’ description of the role of simulacra (“images”) and the sound of the lover’s name in the arousal of lovers (DRN 4.1061–62).69 Although Venus and Juno have been described at work behind the scenes, both the symptoms and the mechanics of Dido’s passion are Lucretian. Virgilian intertextuality, however, is nothing like Plutarch’s cut-and-paste technique. Plutarch’s pastiche of Homeric and Epicurean texts forecloses a favorable view of the Garden’s aﬃnities with Phaeacia, but Virgil’s intertextual modes open up the interpretive options. At first glance, the reader might suspect that the Aeneid simply anticipates Plutarch’s anti-Epicurean persona by tapping into the prevailing anti-Epicurean discourse. at Dido is an Easterner and that the most clichéd of her “barbarian” attributes overlap with her Phaea- cian elements add to this impression.70 Other, more sinister Homeric elements in Dido’s ancestry—Calypso, Circe, the Cyclops—would also support such a reading, especially since those aspects emerge gradually, as though they were lurking under a Phaeacian veneer.71 us the appearance of the Epicurean/ Phaeacian equation in the Aeneid might seem to support a reading of the epic

67. Dyson (1996: 204) describes Dido as “a Lucretian exemplum malum” and reads book 4 as a censure of Epicureanism. 68. Brown 1987: 142; Hamilton 1993: 249. 69. Hamilton 1993: 250. 70. On Dido and Eastern stereotypes, see Hexter 1992. e tecta laqueata of Dido’s palace are an especially rich allusion; in addition of having Phaeacian associations (DRN 2.28), such paneling was also considered Trojan or barbarian (for sources, see Dyson 1996). 71. One of the most sinister (and ostensibly non-Phaeacian) Homeric elements of Aeneid 4 circles back to Phaeacia: when Dido curses Aeneas, her malediction echoes the parting shot hurled at Odysseus by Polyphemus (Aen. 4.612–29; Od. 9.528–535). In Homer, the Cyclopes     67 that champions Aeneas over Dido, Stoicism over Epicureanism, Rome over Africa and the East.72 Yet, when we recall that the Garden itself is not univocal regarding the Phaeacians, another possibility emerges: perhaps Virgil’s over- turning of Lucretius’ rejection of the alleged connection between the Garden and Phaeacia does not dismiss Epicureanism but simply aligns Dido with a less austere (but not debased) Epicurean tradition. Another way to view it might be to take Lucretius as the fundamentalist (Sedley 1998a) and Virgil as the colleague of latter-day, Campanian Epicureans. Once Dido is stricken with love, the Phaeacian intertext slips away. Dido loses all resemblance to the virginal Nausikaa, along with her prospects for Epi- curean tranquility. e Aeneid is not an allegory on Epicurean worldviews, and the exploration of Epicurean values is not the main theme of the Dido episode. But attention to the Phaeacian lineage of Dido demonstrates that Virgil takes part in a great dialogue not just with Homer, Lucretius, and Epicurus (to pass over so many other sources of Virgil’s inspiration) but with generations of friends and foes of the Garden, who, in turn, are engaged in spirited dialogue with Homer and Epicurus. Interpretations of Virgil’s Aeneid are notoriously diverse, and my own conviction is that one can appeal to Virgil’s use of earlier texts to argue (with equal success) either for or against Virgilian sympathy for an Epicurean point of view. In this connection, we must consider the last lines of Aeneid 4, where the description of Dido’s death meshes perfectly with Lu- cretian descriptions of the mortality of the soul:

omnis et una dilapsus calor atque in uentos uita recessit (4.704–5)

[And at once all the warmth and life slipped away and receded into the winds.]

is final description of Dido’s death evokes Lucretius’ descriptions of the soul’s dissipation into air at death (DRN 3.128–29, 3.214–15, 3.400–401, 3.455–56) and thus aligns the narrator—for the moment at least—with the Garden. For have a vague connection with the Phaeacians (Od. 7.205–6) and are the Phaeacians’ former neighbors (Od. 6.3–6), a proximity the Aeneid recalls by placing the Cyclops episode tempo- rally and spatially near the Carthage episode (see Quint 1989: 120–23). 72. For the claim that Virgil’s Dido demonstrates the obvious errors of Epicureanism, see Feeney 1991: 171–72 and Dyson 1996. For support of the idea that Virgil’s depiction of Dido is friendly to the Garden, see Williams 1983: 210–13 and Mellinghoﬀ-Bourgerie 1990. 68       some readers, this Lucretian intertext, “an intertext that subverts some of our certainties” (as R. O. A. M. Lyne puts it) will stand as Virgil’s last word on Dido’s Epicurean leanings.73 ose readers may then take Dido’s ghostly reappearance in the underworld as a sort of illusion or even as the illusory fulfillment of Dido’s threat to haunt Aeneas.74 Others may agree with the claim that Dido’s reappearance in the underworld constitutes a final undermining of Dido’s Epi- curean spirit.

Dido among Epicureans

Although Plutarch liked to maintain that Epicureans are too focused on bodily pleasures to read books, one can imagine various Epicurean responses to the Aeneid, including Epicurean readings that accept Dido as a worthy representa- tive of the Garden. Such hypothetical Epicurean readers might pity Aeneas not only for his loss of the refuge of Phaeacian/Epicurean harbors but also for his subsequent zeal for bloodshed and revenge (though recent readers of Philode- mus’ On Anger would disagree on the latter).75 An Epicurean attuned to the Phaeacian/Epicurean tradition might also understand Aeneas’ delivery from the storm as an obvious allusion to the saving wisdom of the Garden and might see Aeneas’ departure from Dido as a return to worldly turmoil and suﬀering. As we have seen, salvation from troubled seas is a pervasive Epicurean metaphor. Such an interpretation of Virgil may seem as eccentric as Eratos- thenes’ Phaeacian-friendly interpretation of Homer. Yet perhaps eccentricity is to be expected of the Epicurean. Not all Epicurean readings of the Aeneid must remain hypothetical. Eccen- tric or not, stray fragments of an Epicurean reading of Virgil in which the Epi- curean identifies with Dido survive in the writings of Seneca. According to Seneca, an Epicurean philosopher named Diodorus who committed suicide in the mid-first century CE chose as his last words the penultimate declaration of Virgil’s Dido: vixi, et quem dederat cursum fortuna peregi (“I have lived, and I have run the course that fortune granted,” Aen. 4.653). Diodorus the Epicurean is otherwise unknown, and it is diﬃcult to appraise Seneca’s claim that Diodorus quoted Dido before slitting his own throat. e imperfectly contex-

73. Lyne 1994: 196. 74. See Lyne 1994: 196. 75. For diﬀering views on the Epicurean and/or Stoic ramifications of Aeneas’ killing of Tur- nus, see Galinsky 1988, Putnam 1990, Erler 1992, and Fowler 1997.     69 tualized tale projects a complex and arresting image: a male Epicurean philosopher (presumably Greek, if we judge by his name), quotes in Latin—knife in hand—the exit speech of Virgil’s Carthaginian queen. Although Seneca does not mark Diodorus’ quotation of the Aeneid with any citation or attribution, he makes clear that the words have a particular resonance. For Seneca, the lines are not merely Virgilian or tragic in a general sense but are emblematic of a type of respectable, austere Epicureanism that he admires. In fact, Seneca quotes Dido’s words at Aeneid 4.653 three times (De vita beata 19; De beneficiis 5.17.5; Epistles 12.9).76 Each time, he quotes the line with approval and with implicit (and sometimes explicit) acknowledgment of the Epicurean content of her words. In Epistle 12.10, Seneca mentions to his addressee, Lucilius, the dissolute life of Pacuvius (a vice-governor of Syria under Tiberius), who allegedly ended his dinners with mock funerals in which attendants carried him to bed singing in Greek, “He has lived his life” (βεβίωται). Seneca proposes Dido’s words as a more seemly alternative, not just for Pacu- vius, but for himself and his reader(s): “Let us do from a good motive [conscientia] what he did from a bad one; let us say as we go happily and joyfully to our sleep, vixi, et quem dederat cursum fortuna peregi.” Seneca does not ignore the fact that Dido’s words are a prelude to suicide. Aer quoting Dido, Seneca cites Epicurus on suicide: “It is bad to live under constraint; but there is no constraint to live under constraint.” Since Seneca “quotes” Epicurus in Latin rather than in the original Greek and since the original is lost (as are most texts of Epi- curus), it is diﬃcult to know where quotation ends and interpretation begins, but Seneca’s epistle continues, “Many short, simple paths to freedom are open to us. Let us thank god that no one can be held in life. We may spurn the con- straints themselves.” At this point, Seneca anticipates Lucilius’ response: “Epi- curus,” inquis, “dixit, Quid tibi cum alieno?” (“‘So spoke Epicurus,’ you say. ‘Why do you quote a philosopher you oppose?’”). Seneca responds with the assertion that the best ideas are shared property. Dido’s third appearance in Seneca’s works occurs in his On Benefits, in the midst of his lengthy meditation on “ingratitude” (perhaps better translated as “bitter resentment”). From the context, it is obvious that Dido’s words exem- plify the sort of gratefulness that ordinary people lack:

76. For commentary on Seneca’s quotation of Dido in De vita beata and the Epistles, see Gör- ler 1996. 70      

Who dies without complaint? Who dares to say in the end, “I have lived, and I have run the course that fortune granted”? Who dies without rebelling, without wailing? Yet not to be satisfied with the time one has had [praeterito tempore] is to be an ingrate. (Ben. 5.17.5)

e broader context of this passage in the argument of On Benefits also makes clear that Seneca aligns Dido’s gratefulness with the wisdom of Epicurus, who taught that one ought to appreciate one’s past good fortune (praeterita . . . bona, Ben. 3.4.1) and that an increase in time does not increase pleasure (cf. Ben. 5.17.6–7 and Epicurus, Principal Doctrines 19). Seneca’s account of Epicurus’ teachings on gratitude is confirmed in part by Epicurus’ reference to the aging philosopher’s gratitude (charis) for past experience (Ep. Men. 122), but I suspect that Seneca is also thinking of Lucretius’ personified “Nature,” who denounces the resentment of foolish mortals who do not want to die (DRN 3.931–77).77 is context also suggests that Seneca understands Dido’s declaration at Aeneid 4.653 as the words of the proverbial Epicurean who leaves life as a satisfied guest (ut plenus vitae conuiua, DRN 938). e notion that the true Epicurean faces death with equanimity is not made explicit in the canonical texts of Epicurus but stands out in other Epicurean sources. In a saying attributed to Metrodorus (another founding member of the Garden), the sage says he will leave life singing that he has lived well (εὖ βεβίωται, Sent. Vat. 47). e Epi- curean tradition also attributes composure and happiness to the dying Epicu- rus (Diog. Laert. 10.15–16). us, in Seneca’s reading, Dido’s last words express a composure worthy of best Epicurean practice. To return to Diodorus, Seneca does not explain why Diodorus has chosen to die. What is clear is that Diodorus is content with the years he has spent “at anchor” in the safety of the Garden’s metaphorical harbors (ille interim beatus ac plenus bona conscientia reddidit sibi testimonium vita excedens laudavitque aetatis in portus et ad ancoram actae quietem, De vita beata 19). Although some of Diodorus’ detractors held that suicide was unacceptable to Epicurus, Seneca’s assertion to the contrary demonstrates his close familiarity with the texts of Epicurus. Fundamental to Epicureanism is the notion that life oﬀers pleasures even when adversity exists (Ep. Men. 126–27). us a sage would not commit suicide simply because of the loss of vision (Diog. Laert. 10.119). is does not mean, however, that the Garden prohibited suicide (cf. Cicero, Tusc.

77. Compare ingrata at DRN 3.937 and ingratum at 3.934.     71

5.118). In fact, Diodorus’ emulation of Dido and Seneca’s citing of Epicurus in Epistles 12.9 suggest that Seneca and Diodorus read Dido’s suicide as an act that was both dignified and Epicurean. I started this chapter with an Odyssean speech in Homer that provided a text for a centuries-long conversation about Epicureanism and that led some Epicurean readers to seek their models in Homer. Having followed that conversation through its reincarnations in the Aeneid, I have ended with an Epi- curean reading of Virgil that finds something redemptive in Dido’s death. e next chapter will add to this picture the possibility that the many inspirations for Virgil’s Dido included traditions about women philosophers in the Garden. But that, in turn, leads me to wonder if Dido is the emblem not of a woman philosopher but of something female—or womanish—about the Garden. chapter 3 A Woman Named “Pleasing”

When an eel was served, an Epicurean who was dining with us said, “e Helen of dishes has arrived; so I shall be Paris.” And before anyone else could reach for the eel, he fell upon it and gobbled it down to the bone. (Athenaeus, e Learned Banqueters 7.298d–e)1

At the entrance to the Vatican Library in Rome sits an oversized statue of a figure commonly identified as Saint Hippolytus.2 e statue is clearly a pastiche: the lower half is the fragment of a second-century CE Roman copy of an earlier Greek original, most of the upper half is part of another statue, the head and arms belong to yet another era, and the entire figure was restored in the sixteenth century. A composite statue is nothing extraordinary: inscriptions on older statues were oen recut in antiquity to display new names, and sculptors of various eras frequently used the remains of ancient statues to create portraits of more recent figures. Scholars disagree about whether this particular statue was remodeled in antiquity for display in a church, a cemetery, or the pagan library of the Pantheon. It is also not clear how much the Renaissance sculptor knew about the various fragments and their provenance. Records kept by the scholar who discovered the lower half (and perhaps more) in 1551 are unclear. Some scholars also doubt that Saint Hippolytus was the intended subject of the third-century additions, but these issues do not concern us here.3

1. Έπικούρειος δέ τις εἰκαδιστὴς τῶν συνδειπνούντων ἡμῖν ἐγχέλυος παρατεθείσης ‘πάρεστιν, ἔφη, ἡ τῶν δείπνων Έλένη· ἐγὼ οὖν Πάρις ἔσομαι.’ καὶ χεῖρας μήπω τινὸς ἐκτετακότος ἐπ’ αὐτὴν ἐπιβαλὼν ἐψίλωσε τὸ πλευρὸν ἀνάγων εἰς ἄκανθαν. 2. I thank John Fitzgerald, Dirk Obbink, and Glenn Holland, who critiqued an earlier essay (Gordon 2004) that treated the issue of women in Epicureanism. 3. In the first half of the third century, a table for calculating the dates for Easter and Passover (from 222 CE to 333 CE) was inscribed on the sides of the throne on which the figure sits. On the back were added a list of texts, apparently representing the writings of Hippolytus. For detailed discussion of the statue, see Brent 1995.

72    “” 73

What matters are the feet, the hems of the clothing that adorn the figure, and the throne on which it sits. As the work of Margherita Guarducci has shown, the statue’s double hems—a long (unisex) mantle or himation worn over a longer and elaborately fluted chiton or tunic—reveal unmistakably that the original statue depicted a woman.4 A classical or Hellenistic Greek portrait statue of a man would depict the mantle without a longer underlying garment displayed beneath its hem, and the ankles would be readily visible.5 Here the delicate folds of the chiton are so long as to reveal only the front portions of the feet, and the sandals seem appropriate for a woman rather than for a man.6 To a sixteenth-century restorer, these niceties may have passed unnoticed, or perhaps contemporary artistic conventions made them simply irrelevant. But in the eighteenth century, a sculptor who made a copy of the statue for the church of San Lorenzo in Damasco apparently noticed the error: the new sculpture of Hippolytus omits the feminine chiton.7 I rehearse this account of the early life of a sculpture here because the frag- ile but suggestive evidence that ultimately unites this statue with Epicurean history is indicative of the obstacles and uncertainties one meets in writing a history of female Epicurean philosophers, companions, and students. e Epicurean/Phaeacian tradition may be intricate, but here the picture is oen murky and perplexing. In the case of the statue, Margherita Guarducci has

4. Guarducci 1974–75 and 1991. 5. e contrast between the two hems (for women) and a single hem (for men) is maintained throughout various styles of archaic and classical Greek sculpture and vase painting. Artistic convention and quotidian reality were not necessarily equivalent. Contrast the chitonless portrait costume of the famous statue of Demosthenes with the accusation of his enemy Aeschines, who claimed that if the clothing in which Demosthenes writes his speeches were passed around among the jurors, they would not be able to say whether it belonged to a man or to a woman (Against Timarchus 1.131). e two layers Aeschines describes are Demos- thenes’ supposed “so little tunics” (τοὺς μαλακοὺς χιτωνίσκους) and “elegant little mantles” (τὰ κομψὰ ταῦτα χλανίσκια). Aulus Gellius (6.12.2) describes how a tunic that covers from view the whole arm and leg was appropriate for women only. 6. On the use of the chiton and himation in portrait sculpture, see Dillon 2006: 74–75 and 110–11. Hellenistic grave reliefs that depict couples demonstrate the pattern clearly: the man (ankles exposed) oen wears the himation only, while the woman wears a himation over a longer chiton, the fluted hem of the latter resting on the ground. When the male figures wear a chiton under the mantle (as appears increasingly in the Hellenistic era), the garment is visible on the chest but not at the foot. For examples on grave stelae from Smyrna and elsewhere, see Zanker 1993: plates 1–28; for examples from Rheneia, see Dillon 2006: plates 65 and 67. Cleland, Davies, and Llewellyn-Jones 2007 is a useful resource on Greek and Roman clothing. 7. Frischer 2006: paragraph 188 note 7. 74       made the tantalizing conjecture that it depicts a female leader of the Garden. She notes that the female figure sits—with right foot forward—on a rounded throne with front legs in the form of a lion’s head and feet, details striking to anyone conversant with the conventional portrayals of ancient philosophers. As is the case with other philosophers, the ancient portraits of Epicurus follow a distinct and readily recognizable blueprint. A series of statues of Epicurus displays the same carefully delineated stance: right leg projected and le relaxed and set back.8 In each of these portraits, Epicurus sits on a throne with rounded back and front legs in the stylized form of a lion. Statues of the Epicurean disciples Hermarchus and Metrodorus follow the posture set by Epicurus, thus presenting them as the “rightful followers and continuators” of Epicurus’ teachings.9 In portrait sculpture, the throne, similar to seats of honor in the eater of Dionysus, belongs only to the Epicureans. e visual language of the securely identified Epicurean portraits is discussed in chapter 5. Our focus for now is the fact that a statue of a woman had salient iconographical features in common with the portrait statues of the founding Epicureans. While Guarducci’s interpretation hangs on an admittedly slender thread, it is diﬃcult to ignore.10 Could the shared iconographical language signify that the statue is a portrait of a female Epicurean philosopher whom early Epicure- ans placed on a level comparable to that of Epicurus, Hermarchus, Metrodorus, or Colotes? If so, who was she? Settling on a well-attested first-generation Epi- curean name, Guarducci identifies the statue as a woman named emista; Bernard Frischer suggests that a likelier candidate—if the statue represents an Epicurean woman—would be a woman named Leontion.11 But we must step back at this point and consider a more basic question and a broader range of material. What other signs do we have that the Garden was not an entirely male realm? How complex is the evidence, and what sources are meaningful? Most of our information about emista, Leontion, and other women who may have

8. See chapter 4 for a discussion of the iconography of the Epicurean statues. In addition to the “Epicurean” legs, the statues of Epicurean men follow a particular schema for the arms (le inside the himation, which envelopes all but the right arm and the right side of the chest). e arms of the Hippolytus statue also conform to this schema, perhaps suggesting that the restorer knew—but did not use—the full upper torso of the original. 9. Frischer 1982: 125 (cf. Guarducci 1976: 181–83). 10. If the portrait is not Epicurean, it may be a representation of the goddess Cybele, who is oen depicted enthroned and whose attributes include the lion. 11. Frischer 2006: paragraph 188.    “” 75 pursued philosophy in the Garden is as uncertain as the identification of the ancient statue that has survived as part of the portrait of Saint Hippolytus. is chapter examines that uncertainty and shows that writing a history of Epi- curean women is an illuminating but never straightforward aﬀair.

Women in the Garden

Most of our data about the association of women with the Garden comes from an anti-Epicurean tradition that intersects at times with the rhetoric about Epi- curean “Phaeacians” discussed in the last chapter. Cicero’s refutation of the teachings of Epicurus in On Ends oﬀers a relatively uncomplicated introduction to the presence of women in that tradition. ere, addressing the Epicurean character Torquatus, Cicero contends that the Garden cannot defend itself because it has not produced a single great man: “What kind of advocacy is it, what sort of case does pleasure have, if no witness or supporter can be found among those of greatest renown? On my side the historical record brings forth men who spent their whole life striving for glory and were deaf to the call of pleasure. In your argument, history is silent.”12 According to Cicero, the Garden also does not revere the famous men that the other philosophical schools treat with appropriate respect. Instead, Epicurus writes about an Epicurean woman named emista, never mentioning the names of Solon, emistocles, or the other great Greek statesmen. Cicero asks, “Is it not better to speak of them than to fill countless volumes in praise of emista?” He adds nothing more about this woman: the fact that she is female is enough. Tellingly, Cicero insists that these Epicurean aberrations are particularly un-Roman: “Let us leave that to the Greeks. We are indebted to them for philosophy and for all higher learning, but they can take licenses that we cannot.”13 In Cicero’s On the Nature of the Gods, we read that it is not just that women

12. quod autem patrocinium aut quae ista causa est voluptatis, quae nec testes ullos e claris viris nec laudatores poterit adhibere? ut enim nos ex annalium monimentis testes excitamus eos, quorum omnis vita consumpta est in laboribus gloriosis, qui voluptatis nomen audire non pos- sent, sic in vestris disputationibus historia muta est (Fin. 2.67–68). e translation in text is by Annas (2001: 49), with modifications. 13. nonne melius est de his aliquid quam tantis voluminibus de emista loqui? Sint ista Graecorum; quamquam ab iis philosophiam et omnes ingenues disciplinas habemus; sed tamen est aliquid quod nobis non liceat, liceat illis (Fin. 2.68). e translation in text is by Annas (2001: 49), with modifications. 76       were addressed in Epicurean texts; an Epicurean woman actually had the au- dacity to write one. Wrongheaded Epicurean notions led Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Hermarchus to refute the great philosophers Pythagoras, Plato, and Empedocles. Cicero’s skeptical Academic interlocutor continues, “Leontion, a little prostitute [meretricula], no less, dared to write in refutation of eophrastus.” He begrudgingly concedes that her Attic Greek is good, but the rhetorical purpose of his mention of Leontion’s writing is to demonstrate the depravity of the Epicureans, not to highlight her achievement. He ends his comments on Leontion by claiming, “So enormous was the wantonness of Epi- curus’ Garden.”14 As the author of the entry on Leontion in a popular eighteenth-century biographical dictionary writes, “it is pleasant to observe, how peevishly Cicero expresses himself upon this.”15 A consideration of Cicero’s many references to the small corpus of Epi- curean texts that have survived strongly suggests that his testimony can be trusted here. His approach to the extant texts of Epicurus can be sardonic, misleading, or dismissive, but he displays his erudition as he cites them.16 Else- where he does not seem to invent texts or their most literal content, so it seems reasonable to accept the rudiments of his assertions: a woman named emista was mentioned or addressed (apparently oen) in the philosophical writings of Epicurus, and a woman named Leontion wrote an Epicurean philosophical text.17 Pliny (who may simply be following Cicero) confirms the latter, writing that “a woman, no less” wrote against eophrastus (HN, preface, 29). It is noteworthy that Pliny calls her a woman (femina) rather than a prostitute (meretricula). Yet he connects her work about the eloquent eophrastus with a proverb about “choosing one’s tree to hang from,” implying that she—“hoist with her own petard”—had written a critique that merely exposed her own ineptitude.18

14. Istisne fidentes somniis non modo Epicurus et Metrodorus et Hermarchus contra Pythago- ram Platonem Empedoclemque dixerunt, sed meretricula etiam Leontium contra eophras- tum scribere ausa est —scito illa quidem sermone et Attico, sed tamen: tantum Epicuri hortus habuit licentiae (Nat. D. 1.93). 15. Tooke 1798: 293. 16. On Cicero’s knowledge of Epicureanism, see Maso 2008. 17. Usener, in his 1887 edition of Epicurus (101–2 and index 411), lists Against eophrastus as a work of Epicurus, thus suggesting that Leontion was merely the fictitious author. 18. Pliny cites Leontion and the proverb in his preface, where he mentions ineﬀectual negative reviews of his own work. Pliny claims that the proverb itself was inspired by Leontion’s attempt. Teresa Morgan (private correspondence) has encouraged me that I am right to discount Erasmus’ very diﬀerent interpretation of the proverb and to take Pliny to mean that    “” 77

A range of Greek and Roman sources flesh out the evidence oﬀered by Ci- cero and Pliny. A slender trace emerges when Seneca twice quotes a letter from Metrodorus to his (unnamed) sister, in which Metrodorus oﬀers Epicurean consolation on the death of her child (Ep. 98.9, 99.25). When Metrodorus tells her that “all the good of mortals is mortal” (mortale est omne mortalium, Ep. 98.9), is this a one-way philosophical message, or can we imagine the sister as an educated respondent? Diogenes Laertius mentions a sister of Metrodorus who married another Epicurean: “he [Metrodorus] gave his sister Batis to Idomeneus in marriage” (10.23). In the late twentieth century, the Italian scholar Anna Angeli argued that one of the Epicurean papyri from Hercula- neum (PHerc. 176) included a biography of Batis that praised her virtue and wisdom.19 In Angeli’s reading, this biography of Batis was documented with excerpts of her letters, one of which has oen been presented in modern scholarship as a charming letter from Epicurus to a child.

[We have arrived in Lampsacus in good health—I and Pythocles, Hermarchus, and Ktesippos—and we have found emista and the rest of our friends in good health as well. You do well if you and your mama are in good health and if you obey your papa and Matro, as before. You should know well, Apia, that I and all the rest of us love you greatly because you are obedient . . .]

If Angeli’s attribution of the letter to Batis is correct, Batis was a philosophical colleague of the founding members of the Garden whose travels included a visit with emista. According to Angeli, the biography quotes five letters from

Leontion “dug her own grave” (“hoist with her own petard”). Erasmus seems to have thought that the proverb meant something along the lines of “go hang yourself” (Mynors 1989: 242–43, entry 21). 19. See Angeli 1988b and 1994. 20. Longo Auricchio 1988: testimonium 2. 78      

Batis, two of them written on the occasion of the death of Metrodorus. But the texts are poorly preserved, and Batis’ presence in the papyri is shadowy at best. Her own name is never mentioned in the surviving columns of the papyrus that may contain her biography.21 Much later—in non-Epicurean texts—emista and Leontion appear as paradigmatic figures whose accomplishments may serve as models for others. emista is mentioned as an Epicurean philosopher or student by the Christian apologist Clement of Alexandria (late second to early third century CE). Clement cites her as one of several historical women who, like Judith and Es- ther, prove that women are capable of acquiring wisdom (his point being that women can and must learn the teachings of the Christian faith): “And what is more, emista of Lampsacus, daughter of Zoilos, wife of Leonteus of Lamp- sacus, pursued Epicureanism, just as Myia the daughter of eano pursued Pythagoreanism” (Stromata 4.19.121).22 e inclusion of emista here is particularly striking, as Clement expresses loathing for Epicureanism elsewhere.23 In Against Piso, Cicero contemptuously refers to his enemy as “wiser than emista” (63), which suggests that emista’s erudition was already proverbial in Cicero’s lifetime. Leontion, too, appears as a paradigm, in Aelius eon’s Pro- gymnasmata (first century CE), a set of “preliminary exercises” for instruction in schools of rhetoric. For eon, it is not the fact that Leontion was a woman that is remarkable. Instead, he proposes that his students cite Leontion when they need an example of someone whose achievements are especially praise- worthy because of the social distance traversed: “It is also worth admiring a workman or someone from the lower class who makes something good of himself, as they say Simon the leather worker and Leontion the hetaera became pursuers of philosophy.”24 eon’s and Clement’s use of Leontion and emista

21. Angeli’s identification of the subject of the anonymous biography (1988: 47) relies heavily on apparent references to Timocrates, the errant brother of Batis and Metrodorus. 22. ναὶ μὴν καὶ Θεμιστὼ ἡ Ζωΐλου ἡ Λαμψακηνὴ ἡ Λεοντέως γυνὴ τοῦ Λαμψακηνοῦ τὰ Ἐπικούρεια ἐφιλοσόφει καθάπερ Μυῖα ἡ Θεανοῦς θυγάτηρ τὰ Πυθαγόρεια. Unfortunately, we cannot know whether Clement means that emista was a philosopher or that she was a student. 23.“eopompus and Timaeus, authors of myths and slanders, and Epicurus, the prince of atheism [Έπικούρῳ ἀθεότητος κατάρχοντι], and Hipponax and Archilochus must be allowed to write in their shameful manner [αἰσχρῶς]” (Stromata 1.1.1). 24. Translation by Kennedy (2003: 111–12), with modifications. Kennedy translates a new edition of eon’s work that relies on alternative readings in an Armenian translation. In the fourteenth century, Giovanni Boccaccio objected, “Since she was so brilliant in such a distinguished field of study, I will not easily believe that Leontium was of humble plebeian origin” (Famous Women, chap. 60, translation by Brown [2003: 124–25]).    “” 79 as proverbial figures demonstrates their status as legends but provides no further guarantees of their existence as historical individuals. If we approach them with caution, many passages in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers have great potential for uncovering a more grounded history of the paradigmatic Leontion and emista, as well as other women associated with the Garden.25 e two firmest pieces of evidence in Diogenes Laertius’ Epicurean-friendly Life of Epicurus concern emista only. First, it is especially significant that Diogenes includes the following entry in his list of distinguished Epicureans: “Leonteus of Lampsacus and his wife emista, to whom [feminine singular] Epicurus wrote letters” (10.25). e proximity of the name of Colotes (an important Epicurean scholar and another citizen of Lampsacus), which directly follows those of Leonteus and emista in that list, may give us a sense of emista’s importance. Second, Diogenes includes a particular work addressed to emista (Neocles: Dedicated to emista) in his catalog of now lost texts of Epicurus (10.28).26 e Epi- curean Metrodorus is the only other dedicatee to appear in Diogenes’ list of the forty-one “best” works of Epicurus (10.27–28). In contrast, while Leontion is mentioned in the Life of Epicurus, she appears nowhere in Diogenes’ list of important Epicureans or in his lists of Epicurean texts. If it were not for Cicero’s reference to her writing against eophrastus, this silence would weigh very heavily against the probability that we are right to identify her as a philosopher.27 Two embedded quotations in Diogenes’ Life of Epicurus are also relevant, however. ese are a scrap of a letter addressed to Leontion and another to emista (discussed in the next section of this chapter). e fact that the fragments belong to letters is striking, because the only surviving full texts of Epicurus are philosophical treatises in epistolary form. All three of these epistles are preserved by Diogenes at the end of the Life: a summary of the philosophy of nature addressed to Herodotus, a summary of astronomy and meteorology addressed to Pythocles, and an outline of Epi- curean ethics addressed to Menoeceus. us the epistolary form of the fragments Diogenes connects with emista and Leontion may suggest that the

25. On Diogenes’ methods, see Meier 1978, 1992, and 2007 and Warren 2007. 26. e Neocles of the work dedicated to emista is apparently the brother of Epicurus who joined Epicurus in his philosophical pursuits (Diog. Laert. 10.28). Another less likely candidate would be Epicurus’ father. 27. A fragment of a letter to Leontion from Epicurus mentions a letter from her, but the word Epicurus uses is the diminutive ἐπιστόλιον (“little letter”), which implies that it was minor correspondence rather than a philosophical text (Diog. Laert. 10.5). 80       women were students or fellow pursuers of wisdom like Herodotus, Pythocles, or Menoeceus. But Diogenes Laertius’ references to Epicurean letters other than the three philosophical epistles he preserves are problematic.

Epicurus as Habitual Letter Writer

Sayings and clever repartee are the essential vehicles for Diogenes Laertius’ presentation in the Lives and Opinions of almost all of the philosophers he treats. Most of his sages have a penchant for speaking in maxims or punch lines, and their longer remarks are oen presented as rejoinders and retorts. When Diog - enes occasionally includes letters, they are complete or several sentences long.28 In the survey of Epicurus’ life and reputation, however, the vehicles are fragmentary letters and references to letters. e use of excerpts from letters is no- table, since Diogenes could have continued the pattern set by the use of sayings and conversations in the accounts of Solon, Anaxagoras, Socrates, Diog enes the Cynic, and the other philosophers. Epicurus’ sayings—the Kyriae Doxai—are consigned to the end of Diogenes Laertius’ book on Epicurus, completely isolated from the bios. ere they appear as philosophical teachings that cap not only the presentation of Epicureanism but Diogenes’ work on Greek philosophy as a whole. All three of the philosophical epistles preserved by Diogenes Laertius are summaries or epitomes of longer nonepistolary books, the letter format being a pedagogical tool.29 Personal letters that focus on mundane or intimate details are another matter altogether. Deliberate conflation of the personal with the philosophical provided material for learned parody in Alciphron’s Letters of Courtesans (second or third century CE). The inclusion of Leon- tion in Alciphron’s Letters is not in itself particularly noteworthy, as the other eighteen letters in the courtesan collection are penned by non-Epi- curean literary and historical hetaerae. But within her letter to another hetaera named Lamia, Leontion deplores the correspondence she receives from an aged and lecherous “socratizing” Epicurus, who, she says, wants to make

28. A few examples include the pithy sayings of Bias (1.86–88), ales (1.35–37), Anaxago- ras (2.10), Socrates (especially 2.31–37), and Archesilaus (4.34–36); conversations between Socrates and Xanthippe (2.34); and letters from Solon to various rulers (1.64–67) and a letter from Archytas to Dionysius for Plato (3.22). 29. Compare Epicurus’ acknowledgment of Pythocles’ request for a shorter presentation of earlier works (Diog. Laert. 10.84).    “” 81 her “his Xanthippe.”30 She asserts that she will run anywhere, “fleeing from land to land to escape his interminable letters” (17.3). e texts pressed on Leontion by this nearly octogenarian Epicurus are described, at one moment, as confidential (“well-sealed”) notes and, at the next moment, as philosophical books (17.2).31 e fact that Epicurus is trying to educate Leontion in his dotage implies a further devaluing of the historical Leontion’s status as philosopher, as it removes her from the “founding fathers” by at least a generation. Unless the text is corrupt, Alciphron’s Leontion cannot even get the book titles right: she refers to “his Kyriae Doxai about Nature and his distorted Canons” (τὰς περὶ φύσεως αὐτοῦ κυρίας δόξας καὶ τοὺς διεστραμμένους κανόνας, 4.17.2). Aer conflating Epicurus’ On Nature with the Principal Doctrines (Kyriae Doxai), she puns that she will be, according to nature, the mistress (kyra) of herself (τὴν φυσικῶς κυρίαν ἐμαυτῆς, 4.17.2). At any rate, Epicurus’ eagerness to teach Leontion about Epicureanism makes him a strange suitor. Her intended flight from these writings suggests that she views them not only as unwelcome philosophical tracts but also as personal and intrusive correspondence. Ironically, Alciphron’s fictional letter from Leontion—one entry in Alciphon’s extended series of fictional letters—presents letter writing as a particularly Epicurean habit. e contours of this Epicurean habit are complex. Historical reality certainly plays a role: papyri from Herculaneum reveal intense interest in the correspondence of the early Epicureans, and many fragments quote letters or preserve them in full.32 In addition to the three epistolary treatises preserved by Diogenes Laertius, we have citations to apparently authentic letters in Cicero, Plutarch, Seneca, and elsewhere. Letter writing was enough of a hallmark of Epicurean intellectual life that several scholars have viewed the epistolary form of the epistles of Seneca and Horace as a sort of homage to Epicurus.33 e prominence of philosophical epistles in Epicurus’ oeuvre was due in part to an urge to unite the clusters of Epicureans who were scattered across the Mediter-

30. Prone to “socratizing” (σωκρατίζειν), he also wants to make Pythocles his Alcibiades (4.17.3). 31. When Leontion says “writing me well-sealed letters” (ἐπιστολὰς ἀδιαλύτους μοι γρά- φων), the word here translated “well-sealed” can also be taken as “indestructible,” which Al- ciphron may have known as an item from the Epicurean lexicon (Epicurus, fr. 356 Usener). 32. See, for example, Angeli 1988b and 1993. 33. On Horace, see Ferri 1993: 85–94 and Morrison 2007. Ferri describes a competition between genres: Horace reverts to an Epicurean genre (the epistle) in response to Lucretius’ use of a non-Epicurean genre to present fundamentalist doctrine. On Seneca’s epistolary response to Epicurus, see Inwood 2007a. 82       ranean as well as to disseminate Epicurean wisdom and in part to the Garden’s focus on the pursuit of personal happiness. Accordingly, the Epicurean teachings presented in the epistles are ostensibly tailored for particular personages or types of people at particular moments. us the Letter to Herodotus is framed as a comprehensive outline that will help followers who are acquainted with some details but need a comprehensive overview. e Letter to Pythocles presents an introduction to celestial phenomena that is easier to grasp than Epicu- rus’ larger work. Menoeceus, the addressee of an outline of Epicurean ethics, is an older man who is advised by Epicurus that it is never too late to turn to philosophy. One hindrance to distinguishing similarly focused philosophical epistles from citations of more intimate correspondence is the lack of ancient Greek terms that discriminate between personal correspondence and what present- day readers would identify as philosophical epistles. Occasionally the diminutive ἐπιστόλιον (“little letter”) seems to signal that a particular text was an item of private correspondence rather than an epistolary essay or treatise, but in general the ancient sources designate all letters, whether private or not, simply as “epistles” (ἐπιστολαί). Despite the absence of a clear nomenclature, however, the ways a particular letter displays its epistolarity can help one discern a difference. e three epistles preserved in full by Diogenes Laertius display very rudimentary epistolary window dressing: the greeting at the opening, a few singular second-person imperatives, and the exhortation at the end. Only the Letter to Pythocles frames itself as a response to a letter from the addressee. Reference to the receipt of the earlier letter is made precise when its messenger is identified as a particular person named Cleon, but that is the most noteworthy nod to the epistolary form. e Letter to Menoeceus seems less like a treatise and more like a letter because of its comparative brevity and its inclusion of more imperatives that exhort the addressee to “do” or to “practice” or to “believe” (10.123).34 None of the three epistles, however, supplies any news, requests a response, expresses personal affection or concern, or offers details about the disposition of writer or addressee. References to most of the rest of Epicurus’ correspondence reveal an entirely different pattern. An outline of the first few pages of Diogenes’ Life of Epicurus will convey that difference and will illustrate the prominence of letters in a hypothetical

34. Morrison (2007: 114) draws attention to these imperatives, to some first-person plural pronouns (10.124–25), and to the first-person plural verbs in 10.127.    “” 83 database of references to Epicurean women and womanizing Epicureans. First—aer a short introduction on Epicurus’ childhood, his education, and the beginnings of his career—Diogenes mentions that Diotimus the Stoic attacked Epicurus by composing fiy dirty letters and passing them oﬀ as “from Epicurus” (ἐπιστολὰς φέρων πεντήκοντα ἀσελγεῖς ὡς Έπικούρου, 10.3). Next, Diogenes refers to the slanderer who attributed to Epicurus some letters that others assign to the Stoic Chrysippus (10.3). Aer mentioning these spurious collections, Diogenes quickly summarizes stories about Epicurus perpetrated by Posidonius the Stoic, Nicolaus, Sotion, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. ese writers had asserted that Epicurus assisted his parents in their con- temptible trades (the mother as a caster of spells, the father as a schoolmaster), that one of his brothers prostituted himself and consorted with “Leontion the hetaera,” that Epicurus plagiarized Democritus and Aristippus, and that he was not an Athenian citizen (10.4). Next we hear about the claim that Epicurus wrote letters that flattered Lysi- machus’ minister Mithras, addressing him as one ought to address Apollo. At this point, we meet the fragments of the letters to Leontion and emista mentioned in the previous section of this chapter. e language of these letters is extravagant: “By Lord Apollo, my dear little Leontion, how we burst into applause when we read your letter” (Παιὰν ἄναξ, φίλον Λεοντάριον, οἵου κροτοθορύβου ἡμᾶς ἐνέπλησας ἀναγνόντας σου τὸ ἐπιστόλιον); “If you [plural], and emista in particular invite me, I am capable of twirling thrice and rushing to wherever you are” (Οἷός τε . . . εἰμί, ἐὰν μὴ ὑμεῖς πρός με ἀφίκησθε, αὐτὸς τρικύλιστος, ὅπου ἂν ὑμεῖς καὶ Θεμίστα παρακαλῆτε, ὠθεῖσθαι, 10.5).35 Idio- syncratic Epicurean language of the sort parodied in New Comedy may be at play here. e signification of “twirling thrice” is lost to modern readers, and the word for “applause” (κροτοθορύβου) was unusual enough to inspire an entry in the Suda, with this fragmentary letter as the only source (kappa 2480 Adler). Diogenes also records that these sources assert that Epicurus wrote to Pythocles (whom they identify as “good looking”), “I shall sit here awaiting your desired, godlike entrance” (10.5).36 ere follows a reference to a eodorus who mentions another letter from Epicurus to emista in his Against Epicurus, and another unnamed source mentions letters to many het-

35. Clay (1998: 247), who offers the translation “on a three-wheeled cart,” stresses the writer’s “enthusiasm and warmth.” 36. Καθεδοῦμαι . . . προσδοκῶν τὴν ἱμερτὴν καὶ ἰσόθεόν σου εἴσοδον. 84       aerae and to Leontion in particular. e latter source also asserts that Epicurus’ disciple Metrodorus was enamored of Leontion (10.5). Soon aer this, we have the famous (or notorious, depending on the commentator) quotation from a letter to Pythocles: “Hoist sail, dear boy, and flee all culture” (Παιδείαν δὲ πᾶσαν, μακάριε, φεῦγε τἀκάτιον ἀράμενος, 10.6). Aer surveying these letters, Diogenes Laertius mentions Timocrates’ nonextant Delightful People, the ex- posé of the Epicureans’ alleged intemperance and what Timocrates called “those nighttime philosophies” of the Garden (τὰς νυκτερινὰς ἐκείνας φιλοσο- φίας, 10.6). According to Diogenes Laertius, Timocrates cited letters to document his critique. Among Timocrates’ many allegations in Delightful People was the claim that Epicurus spent an entire mina per day on food, “as he himself says in the letter to Leontion, and in the letter to the philosophers at Myti- lene” (10.7). At this point, Diogenes interrupts the catalog of abuse to interject his own opinion about the letter collectors he has cataloged: “But these people are out of their minds” (Μεμήνασι δ’ οὗτοι, Diog. Laert. 10.9). He follows this assertion with testimonials to the kindness, goodness, and patriotism of Epicurus and to the worldwide friendships he fostered. Epicurus’ correspondence appears less frequently in this section, where Diogenes apparently offers his own judgments of Epicurus or cites Epicurean-friendly sources. References to letters of Epicu- rus resume when Diogenes offers documentation of Epicurus’ well-regulated appetite. Having noted Epicurus’ usual satisfaction with bread and water alone, he quotes the philosopher as saying, “Send me a little pot of cheese, so that I can feast when I wish” (10.11). e last letter Diogenes mentions before he moves on to the three epistolary treatises is one to Idomeneus, in which Epicurus writes (on the last day of his life) of his joy despite his suffering and enjoins his addressee to care for the children of Metrodorus (10.22). Whether these nonphilosophical letters are cited to praise Epicurus or to condemn him, their epistolarity is emphatic. eir status as private messages is indicated by requests for a visit, an invitation, or a small gi of food or by exuberant expressions of delight in communication with the addressees. Frank disclosure is also characteristic. In Athenaeus’ e Learned Banqueters, from the late second century CE, one of the diners claims that Epicurus complained in the Letters to Hermarchus that Leontion was having sex with “all” the Epicureans, in his plain view (13.588b). Why are letters and letter writing so prominent in Diogenes’ Life of Epicu- rus and elsewhere? e strong connection between Epicurean biography (or    “” 85 caricature) and letter writing must be due in part to the role letters played in Epicurus’ actual interactions with students and followers. Also relevant is the traditional reverence for Epicurus. Texts by Philodemus and other papyri from Herculaneum reveal an Epicurean practice of collection, quotation, and citation of biographical facts; a tradition that was bound up with the Epicurean focus on individual knowledge, lifestyle, and comportment. Letters were an ideal vehicle for conveying much-wanted data. Personal letters—whether authentic or fictive—served anti-Epicurean discourse as well. Epicurus’ theory of divinity and his teachings about the size of the sun drew some ridicule, but nothing was so telling as what Epicurus had for dinner. In the case of letter fragments that Diogenes knows from the hostile sources, however, it is essential to note the implicit presentation of these texts as purloined or intercepted letters. It is as though accidental or opportunistic in- terception has revealed sordid realities or as though confidential self-disclosure has exposed true intentions. When the letters are damning, the implication is that the third-party reader (as though looking through a peephole) enjoys access to information that a deceitful and ignominious Epicurus meant to keep hidden. e outsider discovers the outrageous price that Epicurus pays for food or listens in on his conversations with hetaerae. e unstated claim that the letter has accidentally reached an unintended reader gives it the badge of authenticity: this is the real Epicurus. e fact of the Garden’s bad reputation would be enough to spur the collection (or fabrication) of incriminating letters, and Epi- cureans could respond with more favorable documents from their own ha- giographies. us a friendly reader catches him expressing concern for a small child or discovers that Epicurus was pleased with a mere pot of cheese. e eavesdropping qualities of these letters have affinities with fictional epistles such as Ovid’s Heroides and Alciphron’s Letters and must make us suspicious of their authenticity. Why are Epicurus’ correspondents in the collections so oen women? His- torical reality may intrude here. But in cases of hostile quotation (or fabrication), the explanation is closely tied up with the references to food. Although we cannot know exactly what Diotimus the Stoic invented, most of the letters that appear in Diogenes’ Life of Epicurus share a focus on women, food, or the attractive boy Pythocles, whom, according to Alciphron’s Letters of Courtesans, Epicurus imagined as his “Alcibiades” (4.17.3). Critics of Epicurus believed (or liked to claim) that the satiation of bodily desires was central to Epicurean practice. What better way to expose the Epicureans’ excessive interest in sex 86       than the promulgation of allegedly purloined letters to Pythocles and various hetaerae? e letters confirm the stereotypical complaint against the Epicure- ans: all body and no mind. I will return to the connection between women and comestibles later in this chapter. e sources for the Epicurus-friendly letters are equally partisan. e fragments counter the stereotypes by citing Epicurus’ abstemiousness. Epicurus could be redeemed through displays of his filial piety. us we have the Letter to Mother, an Epicurean text that appears in the second-century CE inscription of Diogenes of Oenoanda.37 is letter in the voice of Epicurus is framed as a response to the mother’s worried inquiries and refers to the funds delivered to the apparently young Epicurus via Cleon (who bears the same name as the messenger mentioned in the Letter to Pythocles). e letter writer argues that generous support from home is not necessary:

τῶν (10) (col. 2) μ.[έν]τ.οι χορηγιῶν φείδου, πρὸς Διός, ὧν συνεχῶς ἡμεῖν ἀποστέλλεις. οὐ γὰρ σοί τι βούλομαι (5) λείπειν, ἵν’ ἐμοὶ περιτ- τεύῃ, λείπειν δ’ ἐ- μοὶ μᾶλλον, ἵνα μὴ σοί, καίτοι γε ἀφθό.- νως κἀμοῦ διάγ[ον]- (10) (col. 3) τος ἐν πᾶσιν . . . (fr. 126, cols. 1–3 Smith)

[By Zeus, be sparing with the contributions you are always sending us. I do not want you to go without something in order that I may have more than I need; I would rather go without so you do not, and at any rate, I enjoy abundance in all respects . . .]

In the letter, Epicurus also consoles his mother and oﬀers a scientific explanation for the nightmares she has had about her distant son. e reference in Diog enes Laertius’ Life to the mother’s alleged profession as an incantation-

37. See Smith 1993: 555–58 for commentary.    “” 87 monger suggests that she would be in special need of a more scientific approach. e Oenoanda text does triple duty as a biographical sketch, a philosophy lesson about dreaming, and a tract that confronts a negative stereotype.38 But it func- tions also as a formal document that stands up to a ra of intercepted letters. As an inscription on stone, displayed on the walls of a stoa, the letter achieves canonical status. In direct opposition to letters that represent his crude desires, the Letter to Mother portrays another Epicurus, a man who assures his mother that the modest funds he has are plenty and who imparted Epicurean wisdom to her. Not only does the letter demonstrate that Epicurus cared for his mother, but by depicting him engaged in philosophical discussion with her, it suggests obliquely that the place of women in the Garden was an honorable one. As an internal Epicurean document, the Letter to Mother has aﬃnities with the Cynic epistles and the epistolary texts that present the teachings of other philosophical schools.39 e Cynic epistles sometimes focus on the body and on particular personal anecdotes, but there we have the converse of the Epi- curean paradigm: contempt for bodily desires replaces Epicurean indulgence. An undated collection of letters purportedly written to and by female followers of Pythagoras also focus at times on the body. But the Pythagorean women write to each other about issues consonant with the traditional roles of respectable women: care of children, selection of caretakers, clothing, behavior of husbands.40 ese letters are presented not as intercepted but as collected for edification, and nowhere do they display untoward fascination with sex or food. But the situation with Epicurus goes beyond this contrast. Turning back to Diogenes Laertius’ Lives and Opinions of the Greek Philosophers, we can see the diﬀerence between the Cynic epistles and the letters cataloged by Diogenes Laertius. What we have in the latter is the construction of biography via letters summarily cited by primarily hostile sources. Instead of presentations of full texts, we find citation, allusion, and fragment. Rather than a collection that approached the form of a novel, we have a pastiche. us far, the many references to Epicurean letters have not gotten us much closer to a reliable picture of the involvement of women in the history of the Garden. Cicero’s mention of Leontion as a writer and his mention of emista as someone addressed in actual Epicurean books become even more striking when contrasted to the presence of women in collections of personal corre-

38. See Gordon 1996: 66–93. 39. For text and interpretation of the Cynic epistles, see Malherbe 1977. 40. Hercher 1873. 88       spondence. As historical evidence, letters cataloged by Diogenes Laertius may have as little historical validity as the fictional Letter to Mother or the letter Al- ciphron composed for Leontion. Perhaps the likeliest candidates for authenticity are Diogenes’ direct quotations of letters to Leontion, emista, and Pytho- cles (10.5 and 10.6). is would strengthen and expand the information we have from Cicero and from the Letter to Pythocles. But our confidence must be shaken by the fact that the quotations appear among the many items that Diog - enes presents as the unfounded allegations of writers of unsound mind. e pleasure Epicurus expresses from the arrival of Leontion’s letter and his enthu- siastic appeal for an invitation from emista (and her husband) are also suspect. e short quotations stress their status as actual correspondence, and the exuberance expressed may have more to do with character portrayal than with historicity. A first-century CE teacher of grammar and rhetoric named Aelius eon recommended against using florid language of the sort found in this excerpt from a letter attributed to Epicurus: λέγε δή μοι, Πολύαινε, συναπέριμεν μεγάλη χαρὰ γένηται. ὡς χαρῶ, ὡς τέρψωμαι; (“Tell me, Polyaenus, how may I rejoice, how may I be delighted, how may there be great joy for me?”) 41 eon cites this example for illustrative purposes only, as he suspects that this and other letters of Epicurus are fraudulent. He identifies them as items that circu- lated as alleged words of Epicurus (ὡς ἐκείνου). As a scrupulous reader, eon adds, ἡμεῖς δ’οὐδέπω καὶ νῦν αὐτὰ εὑρίσκομεν ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασιν αὐτοῦ (“But to this day I do not find them anywhere in his collected works”).

An Appetite for Women

Hostile sources occasionally refer to the philosophical work of some Epicurean women, as we have seen in the case of Cicero’s reference to Leontion’s critique of eophrastus (Nat. D. 1.93). While the ancient sources refrain from identifying Leontion as a “philosopher” (noun), they sometimes refer to her “philosophizing” (verb), but her engagement in that activity makes a fleeting appearance. Many generations aer Epicurus, a character in the e Learned Banqueters named Myrtilus refers to Leontion’s pursuit of philosophy, just aer

41. Progymnasmata 71, translation by George Alexander Kennedy (1999: 14). Kennedy is translating a text of the Progymnasmata that has been reconstructed from an Armenian version and that improves on the Greek but may still be corrupt (see his n. 60).    “” 89 he has established Epicurus’ lack of education by quoting Epicurus himself and then Timon of Phlius. Myrtilus adds,

οὗτος οὖν ὁ Έπίκουρος οὐ Λεόντιον εἶχεν ἐρωμένην τὴν ἐπὶ ἑταιρείὰ διαβόητον γενομένην; ἣ δὲ οὐδ’ ὅτε φιλοσοφεῖν ἤρξατο ἐπαύσατο ἑταιροῦσα, πᾶσι δὲ τοῖς Έπικουρείοις συνῆν ἐν τοῖς κήποις, Έπικούρῳ δὲ καὶ ἀναφανδόν· ὥστ’ ἐκεῖνον πολλὴν φροντίδα ποιούμενον αὐτῆς τοῦτ’ ἐμφανίζειν διὰ τῶν πρὸς Έρμαρχον Έπιστολῶν. (13.588b)

[Didn’t this Epicurus have as his lover Leontion, who was notorious for being a hetaera? She did not stop being a hetaera when she began to pursue philosophy [i.e., “to philosophize”], but had sex with all the Epicureans in their gardens, even in front of Epicurus, leading him—as he fretted about her oen—to di- vulge the issue in his Letters to Hermarchus.]

Athenaeus’ testimony may be trustworthy up to a point. His reference to Leon- tion’s pursuit of philosophy is corroborated by Cicero’s testimony, and he may well know of a set of genuine Letters to Hermarchus that mention Leontion. But he undercuts the reference to her intellect with an opposing allusion to her sexuality, giving prominence to the latter. Noteworthy, too, is the way he refers to her sex partners as “Epicureans,” as though she were not one of them. is is the norm: nowhere does the Greek adjective for “Epicurean” appear in the feminine. Even when Clement mentions emista, he writes—as we have seen— that she “philosophized Epicurean things” (τὰ Έπικούρεια ἐφιλοσόφει), not that she was an Epicurean philosopher. Sex is the obvious connection between women and the Garden in our unsympathetic sources, but most telling is the collocation of the “Epicurean hetaerae” with “Epicurean” wine and food. Perhaps the first to conjoin Epicurus’ allegedly excessive eating habits with his consorting with women was the defector Timocrates. We have already seen that Timocrates’ exposé cites a letter to Leontion that names the large sum Epicurus supposedly spent daily on food. He adds that other hetaerae—named Mammarion, Hedeia, Erotion, and Nikid- ion—were also sex partners of Epicurus and Metrodorus (συνεῖναί τε αὐτῷ τε καὶ Μητροδώρῳ ἑταίρας καὶ ἄλλας, Μαμμάριον καὶ Ἡδεῖαν καὶ Ἐρώτιον καὶ 90      

Νικίδιον, Diog. Laert.10.7). In addition to his listing of these four “other” hetaerae, Timocrates claims in his exposé that Epicurus vomited twice a day because of his decadent lifestyle (τρυφή). Another important witness is Plutarch, who reports that the skeptical Academic Carneades (second century BCE) ridiculed Epicurus for cultivating his memories of women, wine, and food— the particulars of which he tracked by keeping a ledger to help him remember such details as “how oen I had intercourse with Leontion,” “where I drank asion wine,” or “on which twentieth of the month I dined most sumptuously” (Non posse 1089c). In the same passage, Plutarch’s anti-Epicurean spokesman eon jokes that the remembered pleasures have meanwhile aged into stale food and the dregs of old wine. e references here to the nurturing of pleasurable memories take direct aim at Epicurean philosophy: the Epicurean theory of pleasure stressed the recalling of good memories as a means for maintaining the feeling of well-being. e duration of the meaningful pleasures themselves could be short lived. Plutarch also makes (or transmits) a philosophically based joke on the Epi- curean glutton that combines food with sex when he contrasts Archimedes’ legendary cry of εὕρηκα (“Eureka!” or “I have found it!”) with an Epicurean yell: βέβρωκα or πεφίληκα (“I have eaten!” or “I have kissed!” Non posse 1094c).42 Highlighting the misrepresentation of Epicurean hedonism that revolves around the Epicureans’ alleged addiction to the pleasures of the flesh, the joke presents the women as food for the proverbial Epicurean glutton. Similarly, in the passage quoted as the epigraph to this chapter, Athenaeus creates an Epi- curean dinner guest who draws the same connection. When a plate of eel is brought to the table, the Epicurean declares, “e Helen of dishes has arrived; so I shall be Paris” (Learned Banqueters 7.298d–e). As we saw in the introduction, Epicurus himself had acknowledged his detractors’ linking of sex with food and particularly with fish (a luxury): “It is neither nonstop drinking and revelry nor physical enjoyment of boys and women nor fish or other elements of a lavish banquet that produce a pleasant life . . .” (Ep. Men. 131). In the fih book of e Learned Banqueters, where Athenaeus discusses ways the various Greek philosophers present their symposia, he describes the other philosophers’ correct symposium style and records anecdotes about their remarks on the gluttony of the unwanted guests. But the Epicurean symposium is the epicenter of gluttony. Athenaeus asserts that Epicurus sends the partici-

42. On Epicurean education and attitudes toward literature, see Asmis 1995.    “” 91 pants straight to the food, skipping the requisite libation (5.179d). us, he adds, the Epicureans are like the paradigmatically disorderly woman in Se- monides’ catalog of the types of women: “She oen eats the oﬀerings before they are sacrificed” (5.179d–e; Semonides, fr. 7.56 West). Semonides’ poem equates this woman with the thieving and sexually voracious ferret. Athenaeus connects this ferret woman with the (presumably male) Epicurean. Even in texts in which an array of intellectuals and philosophers is represented as guests at a symposium, the Epicureans are presented in a bad light. In Athenaeus, they are treated as laughingstocks precisely for their interest in the food of which everyone else also partakes. Similarly, in Plutarch’s Quaestiones conviviales, Epicurus “emerges very oen as the villain of the piece, the opposite of everything that a philosopher ought to be.”43 Perhaps the portrayal of the Epicureans as the anti-intellectuals at the party highlights the seriousness of the others. Or is Epicurus an amulet against a possible charge of the other diners’ dissipation? My sense is that the Epicureans provide the extreme case that proves the austerity of the rest. Other passages that link Epicureanism with food reveal a profound ani- mosity that insists that there is a chasm between the Garden and masculine courage. When Plutarch’s anti-Epicurean character eon alludes to the valor of Aristotle, eophrastus, and various other historical heroes who liberated or restored their cities, he contrasts their successful “recalls of the banished, release for the imprisoned, and the restoration of wives and children” to Epicurus’ sending of wheat and barley to friends in need (Non posse 1097c). Plutarch seems to be disparaging not just the meagerness of Epicurus’ response but the fact that succor was rendered in the form of food. eon also cites a lack of regard for patriotic heroism when he ridicules the way Epicurus sent his exuberant and profuse thanks when he himself was the recipient: “If someone omitted the word food from the philosopher’s epistle one would think it was written to express gratitude for the liberation or rescuing of Athens or of all Greece” (1097d).

Plutarch’s Garden of Women

In chapter 2, we met Plutarch as a prime player on the hostile side of the cus- tomary linking of Epicureans with Phaeacians. While the general context of

43. Stoneman 2000: 415. 92       some of Plutarch’s writings can be mysterious, his purpose in referring to Epi- curean women within the context of each piece is clear: they are not philosophers but sex partners. To Timocrates’ list of five hetaerae, Plutarch adds Boid- ion (but omits Mammarion). He also adds some predictable particulars. For example, he presents the beauty of the “Epicurean hetaerae” as an established fact. In the Non posse, Plutarch refers to Leontion, Boidion, Hedeia, and Nikid- ion as “young and attractive women” (1097d–e). Likewise, when Plutarch suggests that an Epicurean would go to bed with a woman instead of staying up to read literature, the woman is extremely beautiful (1093c). Lest we view his oc- casional designation of these sex partners as “women” (gynaikes) rather than hetaerae as a salutary advance, I hasten to add that Plutarch describes them as though they were lovely beasts. Apparently punning on the literal meanings of the names Leontion (“Little Lioness”) and Boidion (“Little Heifer”), he jokes that Leontion, Boidion, Hedeia, and Nikidion “grazed” around the Garden (1097e–f). e closest he comes to representing Leontion as a philosopher is one passage where he stops short of referring to her as a hetaera. When he claims that Epicurus lived sequentially with Hedeia and Leontion, the latter’s name stands alone, while the former appears as “Hedeia the hetaera” (1129b). emista, who is never called a hetaera in any text, is entirely absent from Plutarch. What value do the texts of Plutarch have for an investigation into the involvement of women in the Garden? Does he oﬀer any assistance toward the writing of a history? To answer these questions, we must consider his full anti- Epicurean oeuvre and the cultural contexts of his critiques and polemics. As a recent study has put the problem, Plutarch’s tendentious references to Epicure- anism sometimes “contain a half-truth, which amounts to a whole lie.”44 Here we must backtrack and take a larger view of his literary and cultural frame- works. His confrontation with the Garden is shaped by his role as a reader and scholar looking back at the long lost classical and Hellenistic Greek past, and at least one of his essays (If “Live Unknown” Was Spoken Wisely) has aﬃnities with the controversia, a rhetorical exercise that required the trenchant presentation of one side of an imaginary debate. e fact that Plutarch polemicizes against particular texts written by a first-generation Epicurean or against an isolated Epicurean maxim is indicative of his vantage point. e Epicureans among his contemporaries may not have been his primary concern.

44. Roskam 2007: 45.    “” 93

Among the many works of Plutarch survive three texts whose exclusive focus is the depravity of the Garden. Two of these three anti-Epicurean texts are formulated as hostile responses to one particular (nonextant) Epicurean text that was written over three centuries before Plutarch. at text is a work by Epi- curus’ disciple Colotes called at the Teachings of the Other Philosophers Make Life Impossible. e first of Plutarch’s responses is generally known simply as the Reply to Colotes (Adversum Colotem), while the other survives under the coun- tering title On the Fact at Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossi- ble.45 e third text that focuses exclusively on the Garden dissects the Epi- curean dictum “Live unknown” (λάθε βιώσας) and bears the title “Is Live Unknown a Wise Precept?” e adage does not appear in any surviving Epi- curean text but seems to be authentic.46 Of these three anti-Epicurean texts by Plutarch, only the Reply to Colotes offers what appears to be a sustained close reading of an Epicurean text. Plutarch opens the Reply to Colotes by telling his addressee Saturninus that he expects him to read his response “with pleasure.” Saturninus, he continues, is “a lover of the good and the ancient” who enjoys recalling authentic teachings “of the ancients” (1107d). Quotation, paraphrase, and direct argumentation with Colotes appear throughout, with other texts by Epicurus being brought to bear as necessary. Unlike the Reply to Colotes, Plutarch’s other two anti-Epicurean works simply use an Epicurean text or adage as a springboard for a pointed critique of the Garden. In the piece On the Fact at Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible, Plutarch presents much of the appraisal not in propria persona but in the words of his conversation partners. ere the principal critic of Colotes is the youthful eon, whose vehemence in the opening scene of the piece makes Plutarch guffaw: “‘Oh my,’ I said laughing, “you seem ready to jump on the men’s bellies” (1087b). His laughter indicates not just that he relishes the chance to hear an Epicurean pilloried but that he expects that the criticism lev- eled against Colotes will be over the top. Plutarch himself is the ostensible speaker in If “Live Unknown” Was Spoken Wisely, but there, too, it is difficult to ascertain whether the text offers his considered expression of his own convictions or whether he speaks in the voice of another character like eon. e primary focus may be the virtuoso criticism

45. ese texts are generally cited now under the titles Adversum Colotem and Non posse, respectively. 46. On the authenticity of the adage, see Roskam 2007. 94       of loci classici, perhaps even with a touch of parody. e references to young and lovely hetaerae may be spoken in the voices of the stereotypically crotch- ety enemies of Epicurus. Plutarch may have lied the hetaera names from texts by Epicurus. Yet in those passages where Plutarch names the women, there is an absence of direct quotation or serious engagement with particular texts. e slightly different catalog of names makes it unlikely that his source was Timo- crates, but perhaps he is manipulating material from New Comedy or other literary, non-Epicurean sources. It may be significant that there is no appearance by emista, Leontion, or any other Epicurean hetaera in the Reply to Colotes, Plutarch’s only work that responds in detail to an Epicurean text. His texts that remark on the hetaerae are of a different order. He may know of Hedeia and her companions only from literary hearsay, perhaps from a source like New Comedy. ere is, however, a simple phrase repeated in each of Plutarch’s anti-Epi- curean essays that has great potential as evidence for the historical inclusion of women in Epicurean circles. First, in If “Live Unknown” Was Spoken Wisely, Plutarch writes that the adage “Live unknown” would have prevented Lycurgus from framing laws, Pythagorus from teaching, and Socrates from conversing. Moreover, it should—he continues—logically prevent Epicurus from prosely- tizing, from writing tens of thousands of lines honoring Metrodorus and others, or from sending books revealing his wisdom “to every man and every woman” (πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις, 1129a). Second, in the Reply to Colotes, Plutarch faults Epicu- rus for broadcasting an action of Metrodorus in letters “to every man and every woman” (πρὸς πάντας . . . καὶ πάσας, 1126f). ird, in On the Fact that Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible, Pythocles is urged “by every man and every woman” to scorn culture (πάντες καὶ πᾶσαι, 1094d). e doubling of the adjective is pointed and puts a heavy emphasis on the feminine: we might translate, “to all and sundry, including women.” In the Reply to Colotes, the repeated phrase appears among creditable citations, which suggests that Plutarch knew of authentic Epicurean writings to or from “all and sundry, including women.” If we omit the advice to Pythocles and focus only on the first two examples (which clearly refer to items that were “posted”), there is another piece of evidence in favor of historical veracity. We have seen that letters may be produced as documents containing self-revelatory confessions intercepted by a third party. e missives “to every man and every woman,” however, are not a case of purloined letters; there is no secret, insalubrious content. e lack of confiden- tiality is highlighted, too, by the plurality of the addresses, made “to all and    “” 95 sundry.” e content is overtly philosophical (1129a) or focuses on a public action of Metrodorus (1126f). e addressees are not identified as hetaerae. e affront lies simply in the abundance of female addressees. e lack of reference to intercepted content suggests authenticity.

A Garden of Hetaerae

An obviously censorious tone of the Greek texts that list Epicurean women is achieved through their identification of all of the women but the married emista as hetaerae. (We might note, however, a possible besmirching by association: Philodemus cites a source that claims that the hetaera Mammarion was the lover of emista’s husband, Leonteus [PHerc. 1005, fr. 117, col. VI].) As a great deal of scholarship from the past three decades has noted, the term hetaera (literally, “female companion”) is diﬃcult to translate across historical and cultural boundaries but may be construed as a euphemism for a type of elite prostitute, perhaps very roughly equivalent to a geisha or courtesan. In Ci- cero’s Latin, Leontion has become an outright meretricula, or “little prostitute,” a designation that is less ambiguous (Nat. D. 1. 93). e assertion that Leontion and her associates were hetaerae has survived for over two millennia, appear- ing also—as we shall see—in present-day studies that attempt to assign these women a serious place in Epicurean history. But perhaps a woman who accom- panies a group of men—no matter what her precise role is while in their company—would be a hetaera by definition simply because she had no place elsewhere. Modern readers tend to reify the hetaera and to view her status as though it were a particular occupation. But it may be more appropriate to view the word hetaera as a catchall designation for a woman who—while she may not work in a brothel—is not represented as a conventionally respectable wife or marriageable daughter. e situation is complicated, however, by the fact that postclassical and Roman writers give flesh and bone to the discursive category of the Greek hetaera as much as some of us do today. As Laura McClure has pointed out (writing about Athenaeus), in postclassical eras, the hetaera is “not a historical entity, but a cultural sign” that evokes a long-lost Greek past.47 While some hetaerae may have been drawn from real life, information about them may have been known primarily through depictions in Late Comedy or other literary sources.

47. McClure 2003: 5. 96      

e Epicurean Philodemus was aware of complaints about erotic encoun- ters in the early Garden and adds the name Demetria (a common Greek name), though no woman by that name is mentioned elsewhere as a woman associated with the Garden. In a fragment from Herculaneum, he writes that a certain man “griped repeatedly that Leontion—and a certain other woman—is mentioned in the pragmateia and that Nikidion was the lover of Idomeneus, Mam- marion of Leonteus, and Demetria of Hermarchus” (PHerc. 1005, fr. 117, col. VI).48 e fragmentary title of this papyrus text was “Against the . . .” or “To the . . . ,” with the identification of the opponents or addressees surviving only as the masculine plural definite article.49 e man to whom Philodemus refers may be an outsider (perhaps a Stoic?), a defector like our Timocrates, or a wayward Epicurean. In partial agreement with the earlier interpretations of Mar- cello Gigante and Anna Angeli, Elizabeth Asmis takes the complainer as a member of a rival branch of Epicureanism whom Philodemus presents as a poor scholar.50 An insensitive and lazy reader of the original texts of Epicurus, this grumbling Epicurean must be one of the types that Philodemus elsewhere refers to as near “parricides” who reject Epicurus’ own teachings. e text breaks oﬀ again soon aer the list of women’s names, but it seems that Philode- mus is criticizing a wayward Epicurean for interpreting Epicurus in a bad light, not for believing in women who did not exist. If the text were better preserved, we might discover that he is in fact renouncing spurious texts.51 Several columns later, Philodemus mentions poor Epicurean scholars again, this time in the plural: “ey censure the lives, friendships, embraces, and the associations they had with each other, just as if they had not read the pragmateia” (PHerc. 1005, fr. 117, col. XV).52 Again, my sense is that Philodemus’ complaint is that they are poor readers, not that they never read the text.

48. Much of Philodemus’ scholarly work focuses on canonicity, and he seems to use the term pragmateia for the collection of authentic writings by Epicurus and the other first-generation Epicurean teachers. “Writings” may be the best translation, but it may also have the sense of “record book.” Angeli (1988: 191) emends the text, adding the word hetaera, yielding the translation “Leonzio ed un’altra etèra” (“Leontion and another hetaera”). 49. Angeli glosses the title as Ad Contubernales or Agli Amici di Scuola (the title of her 1988 edition). 50. Asmis 1990: 2378–79. 51. Angeli (1988: 272) suggests that the Epicurean who grumbles about the women has been reading spurious letters. 52. Asmis (1990: 2379) translates “lives, friendships, embraces, and associations with diverse individuals.” e fragmentary text is hard to follow, but I wonder if the word here translated as “friendships” (φιλοποιήσεις, “befriendings”) could refer to unconventional friendships.    “” 97

If Philodemus meant to affirm the historicity of Nikidion, Mammarion, and Demetria, his would be the only Epicurean text to attest to their existence. Un- fortunately, the text is too poorly preserved to know for sure. Perhaps there were no “Epicurean hetaerae” other than Leontion before Timocrates invented them. Or perhaps we should accept Plutarch’s implied assertions that the hetaerae were not “Epicureans” but were mere sex partners of Epicureans.53 Per- haps Leontion (whose status is not only that of “hetaera”), Batis, and emista were the only female participants in philosophical conversations in the early Garden. ere is another path to take, however. Several twentieth-century scholars who explored the possibility of the Garden’s openness to women students did not discount the claim that women like Nikidion and Leontion were hetaerae. Instead, they based an affirmative interpretation on the hostile sources, arguing that women who consorted with men for pay or personal gain (or who had done so in the past) were encouraged to find refuge in Epicurean philosophy. In the 1950s, Norman DeWitt (a scholar friendly to Epicureanism) formulated a description of the Garden in which male slaves provided the labor force for Epicurean book production, young courtesans offered pleasant companionship, female slaves waited on the courtesans, and the entire community was kept in order by a strict hierarchy headed by Epicurus.54 In the 1980s, Bernard Frischer argued that the Garden granted women full access to all of its activities and that such openness “would have been attractive to both women inclined toward philosophy and, perhaps more importantly, to men who sought the companionship of such sympathetic and intelligent women.”55 In Frischer’s reconstruction, the Garden offered philosophical instruction to women of two categories: prostitutes and wives. e first Epicureans sanctioned marriage and child rearing (not the norm in philosophical schools), thus bringing families into the philosophical community.56 But also according to Frischer’s sce-

53. As is the case with the designation “Epicurean woman,” “Epicurean hetaera” is a modern construct. e label “Epicurean” does not appear in Greek in the feminine gender. e women are identified as inhabitants of the Epicurean realm but not as “Epicureans.” 54. In DeWitt’s scenario (1954: 95–96), the work of male and female slaves is under the su- pervision of Mys and Phaedrium, respectively. 55. Frischer 1982: 62. 56. Diogenes Laertius writes, “e sage will marry and have children, as Epicurus writes in Problems and On Nature” (10.119). e will of Epicurus as presented by Diogenes Laertius also records instructions about the care of the children of Epicurus’ disciples (10.19–21). 98       nario, the Garden oﬀered refuge “to social and legal outcasts like slaves and prostitutes and to the demoralized youth of early Hellenistic society.”57 Surviving Epicurean texts do not confirm this interpretation. But around six hundred years aer the founding of the Garden, the third-to fourth-century Christian apologist Lactantius recorded rare testimony for the proposal that Garden gates were deliberately opened for women, slaves, and other nonelites. In the Divinae institutiones (303–13 CE), Lactantius argues that women and slaves cannot learn philosophy, because philosophers need to have a command of rhetoric, grammar, geometry, reading, music, and astronomy:

Quae universa perdiscere neque feminae possunt, quibus intra puberes annos oﬃ- cia mox usibus domesticis profutura discenda sunt, neque servi, quibus per eos annos vel maxime serviendum est quibus possunt discere, neque paupers aut opi- fices aut rustici, quibus in diem victus labore quaerendus est, ob eam causam Tul- lius ait “abhorrere a multitudine philosophiam.”—at enim rudes Epicurus accip- iet.—quomodo ergo illa quae de principiis rerum dicuntur intellegent, quae perplexa et involuta vix etiam politi homines adsequunter? (Divinae Institu- tiones 3.25)

[ese essentials cannot be learned by women, who while still young must learn their domestic work for the future; nor by slaves, who need to toil especially hard during their younger years when learning would be possible; nor by paupers, nor crasmen, nor country folk, who must work for their sustenance; for which reason Tullius [Cicero] said, “philosophy shrinks from the multi- tude.” And yet—it will be objected—Epicurus receives the ignorant. en how will they understand discourse about the so-called elements of matter, which is baﬄing and obscure enough for men of distinction?]

Lactantius names no farmers, laborers, or paupers who studied Epicureanism, but he does name one woman who became proficient in Epicurean wisdom. is is the well-attested Epicurean emista (whose name he spells in the object case as emistem or, in some manuscripts, emenstem). In fact, Lactant- tius describes emista as the only woman any of the ancient philosophers ever taught (Div. inst. 3.25.15). Unfortunately, here—as elsewhere in his corpus— Lactantius cites no philosophical texts. He suggests obliquely, however, that he

57. Frischer 1982: 206.    “” 99 found support for his list of unsuitable candidates for philosophical study in Ci- cero. is suggests that Lactantius may be simply recycling information about Epicurean acceptance of female students gleaned not from particularly reliable sources but from the now long-standing tradition of hostile criticism. I have already cataloged all of the information Diogenes Laertius supplies about women associated with the Garden. But it may be that Diogenes’ most relevant commentary is not about women but about slaves. His testimony is more precise than the broad claims made by Lactantius. First, when Diogenes mentions that Epicurus’ three brothers “philosophized with” him (Συνεφι- λοσόφουν), he adds, “and so did a slave called Mys” (10.3).58 en, when he eu- logizes Epicurus for his “unsurpassed goodwill toward all people,” Diogenes’ evidence includes “his gentleness toward his servants, as is clear from his will, and from the fact that these very people ‘symphilosophized’ with him, the aforementioned Mys being the most respected among them” (10.10).59 e will stipulates that four slaves, including Mys, be set free (10.21). Diogenes uses the verb “to symphilosophize” (συμφιλοσοφεῖν) only eight times in the Lives and Opinions, five of them referring to Epicurus. is usage may suggest that Diog - enes saw the shared pursuit of wisdom as an especially Epicurean endeavor.60 Both DeWitt and Frischer stress the authority wielded by Epicurus as a father figure. Other modern studies have formulated a less patriarchal interpretation, stressing instead other evidence of Epicurean egalitarianism in the pages of Cicero, Diogenes Laertius, and Plutarch and in the interstices between the surviving fragments of Epicurean texts. Also in the 1980s, Jane Snyder identified Epicureanism as a system that “advocated the emancipation of women.” Like Frischer, she proposed that women and slaves who would ordinarily have exercised no rights or privileges found a diﬀerent life with Epicurus: “Within the enclosure of the Garden . . . all members of the group—male and female,

58. Diogenes pieces together this information from two sources, the reference to the brothers coming from Philodemus and the reference to Mys from “Myronianus in his Historical Parallels”: Συνεφιλοσόφουν δ’ αὐτῷ προτρεψαμένῳ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τρεῖς,ὄντες Νεοκλῆς Χαι- ρέδημος Άριστόβουλος, καθά φησι Φιλόδημος ὁ Έπικούρειος ἐν τῷ δεκάτῳ τῆς τῶν φι- λοσόφων συντάξεως· ἀλλὰ καὶ δοῦλος Μῦς ὄνομα, καθά φησι Μυρωνιανὸς ἐν Όμοίοις ἱστορικοῖς κεφαλαίοις (Diog. Laert. 10.3). 59. ἥ τε πρὸς τοὺς γονέας εὐχαριστία καὶ ἡ πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς εὐποιία πρός τε τοὺς οἰκέτας ἡμερότης, ὡς δῆλον κἀκ τῶν διαθηκῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ὅτι αὐτοὶ συνεφιλοσόφουν αὐτῷ, ὧν ἦν ἐνδοξότατος ὁ προειρημένος Μῦς· 60. e other philosophers for which he uses this verb are Aristotle, eophrastus, and Chrysippus. 100       free and slave—were entitled to the benefits and responsibilities of the Epi- curean school.”61 Snyder acknowledged the lack of ancient Epicurean texts that explicitly endorse an unprecedented openness to women students. But she argued that her description of the Garden would harmonize well with the Epi- curean rejection of teleology. Since Epicureanism rejected the notion that human society belongs to a divinely created natural order, the Epicureans might discard traditional attitudes toward all social hierarchies, including gender roles. As Snyder put it, Epicurus’ belief that the world was not divinely created would lead him to assert that “man was not created to serve anyone, nor woman to serve man.”62 Snyder also points out that the Epicurean teaching that personal happiness depends on ataraxia (“tranquillity” or “lack of turmoil”) should have ramifications for the lives of women. e Garden’s disregard for wealth or status and its focus on science and friendships between individuals should mean “that both sexes were le free to develop their intellectual understanding of the universe through the study of atomic theory, instead of following gender-defined roles designed for economy in attaining material success.”63 Snyder did not deny that the Epicurean women were courtesans; in fact, she asserted that “their position as hetaerae seems to be confirmed by the typically suggestive meanings of their names: Hedeia (‘Sweety’), Mammarion (‘Tits’), Boidion (‘Ox-eyes,’ or something to that eﬀect), Demetria (‘Ceres’), and Ero- tion (‘Lovey’).”64 us Snyder’s idyllic portrayal of life in the Garden tentatively accepts the ancient assertion that Leontion and Hedeia were courtesans, but it rejects the ancient assumption that a hetaera cannot be a serious student of philosophy.65

An Epicurean Hetaera Named “Pleasing”?

Many readers have questioned the historicity of all or most of the women that various texts identify as Epicurean hetaerae. Martha Nussbaum, for example, translates the name Mammarion as “Tits” and Hedeia as “Sweety-Pie” and writes, “e authenticity of all the names is highly questionable, clearly; and we see that the beginnings of female philosophizing went hand in hand with the

61. Snyder 1989: 102. 62. Snyder 1989: 102. 63. Snyder 1989: 102–3. 64. Snyder 1989: 105. 65. See also Festugière 1955: 30.    “” 101 beginnings of sexist ‘humour’ about the character of the women concerned.”66 To my mind, the name Hedeia (“Pleasing” or “Sweet”) seems especially suspect, because it sounds like an obvious play on Epicurean Hedone (“Pleasure”). Si- ing fact from polemic is not simple, however. Too narrow a focus on literary and philosophical texts would ignore the broader pool of apparently respectable fourth-century women’s names. Epigraphical evidence shows that the most dubious-sounding “Epicurean” names are in fact genuine Greek names, Hedeia (occurring twenty-four times in Greek sources) being one of the most common.67 e popularity of the name among apparently respectable families suggests that the translation “Pleasing,” rather than “Sweety-Pie” or “Sweety,” captures the way it resonated in Greek culture. All of the names associated in Diogenes and Plutarch with “Epicurean hetaerae” are attested in Attic inscriptions, and the names Hedeia, Nikidion, Mam- marion, and Boidion appear together on particular stones. Could this mean that these were the women who lived together in the Garden? e published texts of two inscriptions seems at first to suggest that Nikidion, Hedeia, and Boidion made a pilgrimage from the Garden to the temple of Amphiaraos at Oropos (not far from Athens) and that Mammarion and Hedeia made offerings together at the temple of Asclepius in Athens. Both temples were located in healing sanctuaries where visitors made offerings to the gods in the hope of receiving in return a cure or instructions for therapy. A study by Catherine Castner concentrates on the theological issue: since Epicurus denied that the gods are interested in human affairs, would he have condoned visits to their temples? Citing sources such as Philodemus’ On Piety (93), Castner acknowledges that Epicureanism allowed for traditional worship, but she concludes that the quid pro quo of the healing cults was antithetical to Epicurean teachings. e special allowances made for errant female students in Philodemus’ On Frank Speaking seemed to supply the solution: “Once the women had made the dedications, they would have found indulgence and forgiveness on the return to the Kepos.”68 is would be a plausible scenario, but later work on the temple archives demonstrates that the appearance of the women’s names (among dozens of others) on the same stones is not as significant as printed texts suggest. As Sara

66. Nussbaum 1986: 38 n. 10. See also Hawley 1994. 67. Fraser and Matthews 1987. 68. Castner 1982: 56. 102      

Aleshire made clear in her discussion of the inscription from the Asclepieum on the slopes of the Acropolis, the individual names are separated by a break of at least twenty-three lines.69 Furthermore, the inscriptions record temple inventories rather than notices of particular dedications. ey demonstrate only that dedications made by these women were present in the temples during two particular inventories; years may have intervened between their oﬀerings. It is even possible that the inscriptions predate the Garden.70 us the inscriptional evidence establishes only that names like Mammarion and Hedeia are authentic, not that they belonged to women who had visited the temple together. What else might the names tell us? Consideration of the many hetaera names in Athenaeus’ e Learned Banqueters is instructive. Leontion is the only Epicurean woman to be mentioned by Athenaeus, and he cites none of the other names of “Epicurean hetaerae.” Nor do the names of Hedeia and her associates fit particularly well with the general patterns that emerge from Athenaeus’ references to hetaerae in Eubolus, Lysias, Menander, and other classical and Hellenistic authors. ere we find that hetaerae oen have dual names: one primary, the other a nickname.71 Many sources also suggest that hetaerae were “very much an international commodity,” while all of the named Epicurean women appear to have Greek names.72 Yet Plutarch refers to Epicu- rus being ensconced “in his little garden, and jointly with Polyaenus making babies with the hetaera from Cyzicus” (Non posse 1098b). e hetaera is unnamed, but the location of Cyzicus on the Sea of Marmara in Anatolia deserves notice, as many of the foreign hetaerae mentioned in Athenaeus hail from Asia Minor in particular. Some sources indicate, however, that an Athenian citizen woman (or the legitimate daughter of a citizen) could be a hetaera.73 Athenaeus’ story about a daughter of Leontion named Danae adds yet another twist (593b–d).74 According to Athenaeus, Danae was a hetaera who res- cued the Ephesian commander Sophron, whose murder had been plotted by another hetaera. e fact that mother and daughter were identified as hetaerae

69. Aleshire 1989: 67. Having seen this inscription (for which I owe thanks to Harry Kritzas, curator of the National Epigraphical Museum at Athens), I can confirm that the printed editions make the text appear more compact than it actually is. Aleshire’s work treats mainly the Asclepieum but is also relevant for the temple of Amphiaraos. 70. Aleshire (1989: 173) dates the inventory from the Asklepieum shortly before 274/3 BCE, not in 301/0 as proposed by Castner. 71. McClure 2003: 63, 68–74. 72. Ogden 1996: 160. 73. Ogden 1996: 160–61. 74. McClure 2003: 155–56.    “” 103 may be significant. In contrast to general practice, where women are identified through the name of husband or father, the matrilineal descent of hetaerae is regularly mentioned in ancient sources. Laura McClure suggests that the appearance of the metronymic in inscriptions may suggest “a specialized use among courtesans.”75 us the linking of Leontion with Danae may present Leontion and her daughter as hetaerae by profession, a detail relevant to this discussion if Danae was a historical personage. e possibility remains, however, that the daughter was an exclusively literary creation based on the reputation of Leontion or on other literary incarnations of Leontion.76

Painting Leontion

Further inconclusive but significant information may be gleaned from Pliny’s history of painting in his Natural History. Pliny lists paintings of Leontion in his surveys of the work of two painters: Aristides of ebes and another eban painter named eorus. eorus is a lesser-known figure whose works included an Orestes, a Cassandra, and a King Demetrius as well as a painting of “Leontion of Epicurus thinking” (Leontium Epicuri cogitantem).77 At first glance, the genitive “of Epicurus” aer her name in Pliny’s description of the painting may suggest that the painter presented her as a partner “of Epicurus,” but the genitive may refer as well to her status as a disciple “of Epicurus.” Re- gardless, the reference to a painting depicting her in thought is tantalizing. As for Aristides’ painting, Pliny refers to it simply as “Epicurus’ Leontion” (Leon- tium Epicuri). A character in e Learned Banqueters named Cynulcus identifies Aristides as a pornographos (a term first attested there; 13.567b). If we assume that there is some kernel of historical truth in Athenaeus’ char ac teri - zation of Aristides as a pornographos, the painting is simply an entry in the tradition of sexualizing the women associated with the Garden. By pornographos, Cynulcus seems to mean, in Madeleine Henry’s synopsis, “one who represents prostitutes, in speech, in writing, or in pictorial form, one who publicly admits knowledge of prostitutes and shares this knowledge.”78 But the trail becomes interesting again when we notice Pliny’s description

75. McClure 2003: 76. 76. See McClure 2003: 156 on the likelihood that the story of Danae in Athenaeus is filtered through Greek comedy. 77. HN 35.144 (cf. 35.99). 78. Henry 2000: 507. 104       of the importance of this painter: Aristides (though his use of color was harsh) was “the first to depict the mind and to convey human sensibility, what the Greeks call ethe [character], and the emotions.” If Pliny is correct to place this Aristides as a contemporary of the famous painter Apelles, the painting might be roughly contemporary with the historical Leontion. e lists of the painters’ other works suggest the likelihood that the painting was not a portrait per se but instead oﬀered a mythologized Leontion. But perhaps both eorus and Aristides were interested more in her passion for philosophy than in her body. Perhaps the tradition of painting portraits of Leontion in meditation (Pliny, HN 35.144; cf. 35.99) represents an alternate tradition (one that regarded her as a bona fide philosopher). Her mind could be a theme of the paintings even if the point was to portray a beautiful hetaera who could also philosophize.

Revisiting Dido

In the previous chapter, I suggested that Dido’s connections with Epicureanism run deep. Epicurean and Lucretian elements of her language and demeanor in Virgil’s Aeneid work in concert with the Phaeacian strands of her literary heritage. Here I would like to stress the significance of Virgil’s attribution of Epi- curean sentiments to a woman. When Virgil endowed Dido with an Epicurean outlook, he may have imagined her as a new emista or perhaps a new Leon- tion. Whether or not there were women among Virgil’s Epicurean friends and fellow students, he would have known of emista and Leontion—if only from the same sources that Cicero knew. e Aeneid’s first-century Epicurean readers may have interpreted Virgil’s Dido as a literary creation whose gender made sense, while reflecting no hostility against the Garden. e story of Dido’s erotic desire as parodied in Petronius’ Satyricon, however, belongs unambiguously to the less savory tradition about Epicureanism and the feminine. For Petronius, Dido’s Epicurean connections have great comic potential. In the story known as “e Widow of Ephesus” told by Eu- molpus in the Satyricon, a soldier discovers an extraordinarily virtuous and beautiful widow starving herself to death in her husband’s tomb. As the story oen goes in Greek tragedy and its descendants, the suffering woman holds out for many days but then loses her resolve. She rejects the soldier’s first offers of food, but her maid cannot resist the fragrance of the wine. Once the maid yields to the soldier’s offers of food, the maid, in turn, convinces her mistress to eat by questioning the point of her fidelity to a deceased husband: Id cinerem aut    “” 105 manes credis sentire sepultos? (“Do you think that mere ash or the buried shades care about this?”) e widow eventually accepts nourishment, and the soldier then “launches an assault on her pudicitia [virtue/chastity], employing the same charms he had used to give her the will to live” (Satyricon 112). Here, too, the maid assists, asking the widow: Placitone etiam pugnabis amori? (“Will you fight even a pleasing love?”) And a love affair ensues in the cavelike tomb. In this scene from the Satyricon, the maid speaks to the widow in hexameters, recycling, in both instances, the very lines Anna had used to persuade Dido to release herself from her pledge of fidelity to her own late husband (Aen. 4.34 and 4.38). As the ancient commentator Servius notes, Anna is following Epicurean doctrine (dicit . . . secundum Epicureos) when she urges Dido on by asking, Id cinerem aut manis credis curare sepultos? (Aen. 4.34).79 us, in this particular scene in Virgil, Anna shares her sister’s status as an Epicurean avant la lettre. Petronius’ recycling of these lines from the Aeneid is clearly a travesty of Epicurean philosophy, in addition to being a more general send-up of the miscreant who spouts off “philosophic” pretexts. at food and sex are involved sharpens the joke. A superficially Epicurean answer to Anna’s question might assert that the dispersion of the atoms of the soul at the moment of death renders useless any concern for the dead, but the treatment of the husband’s body in Petronius makes the appeal to Epicurean wisdom especially ghoulish (his corpse is nailed to a cross to replace the corpse the distracted soldier was meant to be guarding). In actual Epicurean practice, the dead were memorialized with especial care, but ridicule of the Epicurean belief in the mortality of the soul came easily. Petronius makes the trajectory from Anna’s pleas to the maid’s facile pretexts look inevitable. Critics who are convinced that the Aeneid takes a dark view of Epicureanism might conclude that a less than salubrious general connection between Epicureanism and a woman’s sexuality is latent in the Aeneid. My own belief is that the larger context of Petronius’ parody is the long- standing extra-Virgilian tradition of associating Epicureanism with women, wine, food, and sex. Where does this leave us as we search for evidence of the historical involvement of women in the pursuit of Epicurean wisdom? It seems significant that the two names of “Epicurean women” with the best authority, emista and Leontion, cannot be construed as “Epicurean” abstractions (as can be Hedeia) and are also the least sexually suggestive. Although it was not uncommon to

79. Petronius’ sentire replaces Virgil’s curare. 106       give animal names to prostitutes, Leontion (“Little Lioness”) is not necessarily erotic.80 Cicero’s reference to her writing establishes Leontion as a philosopher in her own right. Cicero’s testimony also tells us that emista (whose name can be translated as “Righteous”) figured in some of Epicurus’ philosophical writings. She is not labeled as a hetaera in the ancient texts, and she never appears in any lists that include other “hetaerae,” as do Nikidion and Mammar- ion. As we have seen, emista also appears as a student and teacher of Epi- cureanism in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata (4.19) and Lactantius’ Divinae institutiones (3.25.15). us emista and Leontion have the strongest claims on historicity. It is for good reason that both of their names have been suggested for the portrait statue with which we began. Because Leontion figures in Cicero as an Epicurean writer and because several sources treat her as an actual philosopher (or “philosophizer”), she seems—if we are right to read the portrait as Epicurean—to be the better candidate.81 Yet Cicero, Clement, and Lac- tantius also recognize emista as an actual Epicurean. What are we to make of references suggesting students of Epicurus, Leon- tion, and emista? When situated in the broader context of the cumulative pieces of evidence for female participation in Epicurean endeavors, Plutarch’s condescending references to letters sent “to every man and every woman” take on greater weight. It is striking that he mentions no unwholesome content and implies nothing about the recipients’ sexuality. e straightforwardness of these repeated mentions of anonymous men and women as Epicurus’ addressees suggests that we should take them at face value, thus making them strong evidence for the presence of women in far-flung Epicurean circles. Nothing is implied however, about the standing of these women or about their philosophical qualifications. is slight but meaningful evidence gathered from Plutarch’s texts is strengthened further by fragments from Philodemus’ treatise On Frank Criticism. Despite severe damage to this text from Herculaneum, the theme of On Frank Criticism is clearly the usefulness and necessity of candor in advancing learning, solidarity, and collaboration among Epicurean friends. A good teacher can instruct almost anyone in the ways of the Garden, but whether honest and forthright correction should be blunt or gentle will depend on the type of student. Trying to oﬀer constructive criticism to rulers and kings is per-

80. On an erotic connotation of lions in general, compare Ar. Lysistrata 232. 81. In his note on In Pisonem 63, Nesbit (1960: 127) writes that the context suggests that emista wrote about glory.    “” 107 ilous, and Philodemus seems to imply that one would do well to avoid the attempt. But at the other end of the spectrum, the teaching of women is possible, though requiring an especially careful approach. In describing the change in tone required by a teacher or fellow student who wants to instruct women, Philodemus warns that harsh criticism can be counterproductive. A correction that might serve young men well could be crushing to women (VIa.4–6). With- out revealing whether he thinks that a woman’s vulnerability and limitations are due to cultural or biological forces, Philodemus here discloses his acceptance of some unattractive stereotypes: “ey [believe] that they are being reviled, and they feel more distressed by the disgrace, and they are more prone to suspect evils concerning those who admonish them, and, generally, they find more upsetting all the things because of which some people feel stung and, besides, they are more rash and more frivolous and [more concerned with their reputation]” (XXIIa.I–II).82 According to Philodemus, the women’s belief that they deserve special treatment only makes matters even worse: “[ey de- mand] that the weakness of their [nature] should be pitied and pardoned and should not be intentionally abused by stronger people. Hence, they quickly end up in tears, because they believe that they are being reproached out of contempt” (XXIIb.1–9).”83 Although these anonymous women students or adherents receive brief mention, their presence in Plutarch and Philodemus suggests that the Garden was indeed open to women and that Epicureanism appealed to members of society who were not conventional (male) students. Philodemus’ tone may shat- ter any illusion of an idyllic Garden where women “symphilosophize” alongside the men, but perhaps his point of view does not reflect the position of earlier Epicureans. Philodemus’ dim view of female character may be due merely to his own disposition or that of his teacher Zeno or to Philodemus’ historical and cultural context. We must note, however, that tradition records very few names of female Epicurean philosophers beyond the first-generation era of Leontion, Batis, and emista.84 Does this mean that their presence was a fluke, that Epi- cureanism became more conservative as it aged, or that later generations ac-

82. Translation by Voula Tsouna (2007: 109). 83. Translation by Voula Tsouna (2007: 109). 84. Plotina, the politically active wife of the emperor Trajan (c. 53–117 CE), was an Epi- curean who successfully petitioned Hadrian to grant the Epicureans the right to appoint a noncitizen as head of their school (van Bremen 2005). Another second-century female Epi- curean from Rhodes is praised by Diogenes of Oenoanda (fr. 122 Smith). 108       cepted women as students but not as teachers? Or could it be that Leontion and emista had no existence independent of the biographies of Epicurus and the other male Epicureans? Is it mere wishful thinking that turns the chair of the Saint Hippolytus statue into an Epicurean throne? Whether anti-Epicurean lampoons or polemics invented a hetaera named “Pleasing” or simply capitalized on her presence, it is not difficult to see how Leontion, Hedeia, Nikidion, and their friends functioned in the tradition. Epi- cureanism—in the eyes of its critics—is about food and sex. Ergo, there were women in the Garden. Historical or not, the women are the stuff of legends and satire. But there is something more. at something is encapsulated at the end of one of the entries for “Epicurus” in the Byzantine encyclopedia known as the Suda.85 e encyclopedia article focuses on the impieties, excesses, and illnesses of Epicurus and his brothers and disciples and ends by describing how Epicureans were banished from Rome, Messinia, and Lyktos. In the latter city, the law specified the gruesome punishments to be inflicted on any Epicurean who dared to stay. Such a person would be stripped, covered with milk and honey, and bound for twenty days while the insects made a meal of him. e last line of the Suda entry is the last requirement specified in the law: Aer this time, if he were still alive, he should be thrown from a cliff, dressed in women’s clothes (τούτου γε μὴν διελθόντος, ἐὰν ἔτι περιῇ, κατὰ κρημνοῦ ὠθείσθω στολὴν γυναικείαν περιβληθείς). is male philosopher in women’s clothing will appear again in the next chapters.

85. Suda, epsilon 2405 Adler = Aelian, fr. 39 Hercher, from On Divine Manifestations. chapter 4 Virtus and Voluptas

So you think that they understand what Epicurus says, but I do not? Let me show you that I do understand. First of all, what he calls ἡδονή, I call voluptas . . . No other word can be found that signifies a Greek word in Latin more exactly than voluptas does.1 (Cicero, Fin. 2.13)

Seneca begins one of his epistles to Lucilius with a conventional acknowledgment of a recent communication from his correspondent: Magnam ex epistula tua percepi voluptatem (“I received great pleasure from your letter,” 59.1).2 e formula sounds innocuous, but the choice of opening requires an apology: “Al- low me to use these words in their everyday meaning, not in the philosophical sense. We Stoics consider pleasure a vice.” Roman texts frequently juxtapose the Garden with the Stoa, but Seneca’s monitoring of his own vocabulary demonstrates how fundamental the issues were. is chapter deals with a particularly Roman response to Epicureanism that places the Garden on one pole and Ro- man manliness on the other. As a Greek import and as the school that promoted “pleasure,” the Garden threatened to disrupt a requisite component of Roman public life: the vigilant maintenance of the masculine self. A fundamental mode of response to this threat involved a seizing of control of Epi- curean language.

1. Ergo illi intellegunt quid Epicurus dicat, ego non intellego? Ut scias me intellegere, primum idem esse dico voluptatem, quod ille ἡδονή . . . Nullum inveniri verbum potest quod magis idem declaret Latine, quod Graece, quam declarat voluptas. 2. While Seneca’s epistles are in some ways fictional, an understanding of their epistolary form is nonetheless essential to interpretation. On their fictional nature, see Griﬃn 1992: 416–19; on their epistolarity, see Wilson 2001 and Inwood 2007. Bourgery (1911: 43–45) reckoned that Seneca presents thirty-two letters—which would likely have taken months to reach the recipient—as having been sent in approximately forty days.

109 110      

Voluptas and Dolor

Greek philosophical attitudes toward pleasure are diverse, and discussions of pleasure in Greek texts do not always shi automatically from “pleasure” to “vice.”3 But in Rome, voluptas (“pleasure”) is routinely and aggressively reviled. Epicurean discourse that oﬀers voluptas as the standard translation of the Greek ἡδονή (hedone) is, of course, the exception. Voluptas is the culminating word of the opening line of Lucretius’ De rerum natura, signaling its centrality to Lucretius’ epic presentation of the wisdom of the Garden.4 Among Roman Epicureans and in common parlance in Roman culture at large, the opposite of voluptas (“pleasure”) is dolor (“pain”). us, in Cicero’s treatment of Epicureanism in On Ends, the Epicurean spokesman Torquatus frequently contrasts pleasure with pain, with voluptas being the highest good (summum bonum), which all people naturally seek, and dolor being the greatest evil (summum malum), which they instinctively avoid (e.g., Fin 1.29, 42, 55). When Lucretius describes the movement of pain and pleasure from the blood into the bones, he calls dolor the opposite heat (contrarius ardor) of voluptas (3.251–55). Pain and pleasure are also construed as polar opposites in Lu- cretius’ descriptions of their production in the mechanics of sensation. ere he explains that the primordia (“first beginnings” or “primary elements”) feel no sensations on their own and thus can feel neither pain nor pleasure: scire licet nullo primordia posse dolore / temptari nullamque voluptatem capere ex se (2.967–68). At several points in his defense of Epicurus, Cicero’s Torquatus also reminds us how Epicurus taught that the pursuit of inappropriate, excessive pleasures actually causes pains (a point that detractors of Epicurus most pre- ferred to ignore). Citing vigorous physical exercise for the sake of simple illustration, Torquatus explains, in addition, that someone may choose to endure toil (labor) and pain (dolor) in order to achieve a postponed pleasure. But generally speaking, pleasure is to be sought, and pain is to be avoided. Torquatus takes care to begin his primer on Epicureanism by identifying his goal as the

3. For a survey of the most important texts, see Gosling and Taylor 1982. Foucault treats a range of Greek literary and philosophical texts that reveal how “the use of pleasures” was not scorned but was problematized as elite culture sought to “moderate, limit, and regulate” sexual pleasures (Foucault 1984 [trans. 1985]: 53). 4. Yet, when he refers to Epicurean pleasures, Lucretius frequently uses other, less charged words for “pleasant” or “sweet” (sauvis, dulcis, iucundus), as in the proem to the second book (DRN 2.1, 3, 4, 5, 7). See n. 50 in this chapter.    111 eradication of the wrongheaded idea that pleasure is to be despised and pain is to be extolled.5 For Cicero, the ability to endure pain is a key masculine trait. In the Tuscu- lan Disputations, having attributed to Aristippus the identification of pain as the greatest evil, Cicero withholds editorial comment until his mention of the second philosopher to take that view: “Next, Epicurus obediently went along with that emasculating and effeminate belief” (hanc enervatam muliebremque sententiam, Tusc. 2.15). Cicero contrasts Spartan boys, athletes at Olympia, and even the lowly gladiator with the Epicurean who would cry out “like a woman” when faced with even a lesser pain (2.46). Later in that passage, he asserts that the same soness that makes someone susceptible to the call of pleasure also makes him prone to the “effeminate and unthinking” (effeminata ac levis) fear of pain (2.52). Similarly, Plutarch asserts that Epicurean teachings about the avoidance of pain amount simply to an inability to withstand its onslaught. In his Reply to Colotes (a work that critiques an Epicurean text), Plutarch asserts that disgrace is what a great man dreads, while pain terrifies children and weak women and men with “womanish” souls.6 Expressing contempt for the Epicurean identification of pleasure as the good and pain as the evil, Cicero refers to the “dangers, the labors, even the pain that any good man undergoes on behalf of his country and his people,” and he lauds Torquatus’ more patriotic—and non-Epicurean—ancestors for choosing pain over pleasure (Fin. 1.24). While acknowledging Epicurus’ famous disregard for pain on his deathbed (which Epicureans cited as an exemplum of Epi- curean equanimity), Cicero uses the diminutive form of the adjective, calling the dying Epicurus “a little bit brave” (forticulum).7 Similarly, Seneca describes a hypothetical Epicurean who is intimidated by “the little stabs of pleasure and pain”8 as “no good protector or avenger of his country, nor a defender of his

5. Sed ut perspiciatis, unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque lau- dantium, totam rem aperiam eaque ipsa, quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt, explicabo (“But to show you whence arose the mistaken attacks on pleasure and the mistaken praises of pain, I shall make the whole subject clear, and I shall expound the very words that were spoken by the discoverer of truth, the architect, as it were, of the happy life,” Cicero, Fin. 1.32). 6. τὸ αἰσχρὸν ἀνδρὶ μεγάλῳ φοβερόν ἐστιν, ἀλγηδόνα δὲ παῖδες καὶ γύναια καὶ γυναίων ψυχὰς ἔχοντες ἄνδρες δεδίασι· (Adv. Col. 1126e). 7. Tusc. 2.45. Seneca refers oen to the nobility of Epicurus on his deathbed (cf. Epistles 42.25, 66.47–48). 8. ad voluptatum dolorumque punctiunculas concutitur (De vita beata 15.4). 112       friends.”9 ese simple assertions that loyalty, bravery, and love of country should rightly lead one to shun pleasure (voluptas) and to endure pain (dolor) clearly had some potential for a hostile critique of Epicureanism that questioned the masculinity of the Epicurean. Cicero (and Plutarch, who was well acquainted with the texts of Cicero and with Roman culture) presents the manliness of contempt for pain as self-evident. But the rhetorical opposition between pleasure and pain plays a relatively minor role among the enemies of the Gar- den. In the most virulent anti-Epicurean discourse, pleasure was the polar opposite not of pain but of a quintessentially Roman quality: virtus.

An Irresistible Alliteration

Roman texts from various eras—and by Cicero and Seneca in particular—frequently articulate a dichotomy between voluptas, on the one side, and virtus, on the other. In the confrontation between the two terms, it is hard to miss the repetition of v, u, and the liquids r and l, as well as the answering of tut with tat or of tus with tas. e alliteration is seductive. When the alliteration and paronomasia produced by the collocation of the two terms are marked and unmistakable or when grammatical or syntactical parallelism draws attention to the antithesis, Epicureanism is virtually always the subject. Seneca delivers several extraordinary riﬀs on the virtus/voluptas theme. But I start with some of Cicero’s more sober articulations of the opposition. For the sake of simplicity, I will begin here by translating virtus as “virtue,” postponing, for the moment, a search for a more precise rendering. In his response to the Epicurean Torquatus in On Ends, Cicero reconfigures the disagreement over Epicureanism between himself and Torquatus as an argument not between Ci- cero and his interlocutor but between virtue and pleasure (virtuti cum voluptate certatio, 2.44). At one point, Cicero tells Torquatus, “You Epicureans, by running your lives according to voluptas, are unable to cultivate or retain virtus.”10 Pleasure is for animals, but even some animals possess something similar to human virtues: “So in the human race,” he asks Torquatus, “will there be no virtue except for the sake of pleasure?” (In ipsis hominibus virtus nisi voluptatis causa nulla erit? Fin. 2.110). In his summing up of his reply to Torquatus,

9. Sed ne patriae quidem bonus tutor aut vindex est nec amicorum propugnator, si ad voluptates vergit (De vita beata 15.4). 10. Non igitur potestis voluptate omnia dirigentes aut tueri aut retinere virtutem (Fin. 2.71).    113

Cicero asserts that any significant praise of virtus must exclude pleasure (bene laudata virtus voluptatis aditus intercludat necesse est, 2.118.35). In the Laws, when Cicero enumerates the qualities that some people (the Epicureans are implied) might place above virtue, he asks, “Or, is it that which is most vile to say: voluptas? But it is in the spurning and repudiating of pleasure that virtus is best discerned” (Legibus 1.19.52). Epicurus is the subject again when Cicero writes that the good orator avoids philosophical vocabulary, not arguing whether the highest good is in the body or the soul or whether it should be defined as manly virtue or pleasure (virtute an voluptate definiatur, De or. 1.222.5). When Cicero contrasts voluptas to the manly endurance of dolor in the passages already quoted, his location of “Epicurean” pleasure in the body is patent. In this passage from On the Ora- tor, he demonstrates that the voluptas/virtus antithesis also belongs to the discourse that condemns Epicurus for focusing on the body at the expense of the intellect. is emphatic distinction between the Epicurean body and the manly Roman’s mind is latent in the passage quoted previously, but the division emerges more clearly at times. In the Tusculan Disputations, Cicero makes the mind/body contrast crystal clear: “To my thinking the highest good is in the mind, to his thinking in the body; to mine in virtue, to his in pleasure” (mihi in virtute, illi in voluptate, Tusc. 3.50).11 In all of these passages, alliterative display and assonance enhance the forcefulness of Cicero’s claims and present the opposition of the two terms as incontrovertible. Elsewhere, the repetition of sounds is an indispensable tool in Cicero’s most vituperative modes of censure. In On the Orator, when Cicero describes wordplay, especially a category of punning “that relies on a slight change in spelling, which the Greeks call paronomasia,” all of the examples he gives involve hostility. He admires, for example, Cato’s riposte Si tu et adversus et aver- sus impudicus es (“Whether from in front or from behind, you are disgusting,” De or. 2.63.256).12 In his own Verrine orations, Cicero asserts that Verres’ re- calculation of the calendar (to hurry an election) was based less on astronomy (caeli rationem) than on silver plate (caelati argenti, Verres 2.52.129). Later, he puns that Verres spent his Sicilian winters not only indoors (tectum) but in bed

11. For Epicurus, rational thought is located in the chest: τὸ δὲ λογικὸν ἐν τῷ θώρακι. Ar- righetti (1973) restores this passage from a scholium to Epistula ad Herodotum 66. 12. See Corbeill 1996: 152–53 on the sexual connotation of “from in front” and “from behind.” 114      

(lectum, 5.10.26). Similarly, in the Pro Caelio, he refers to Clodia as not only noble but notorious (non solum nobili sed etiam nota, Cael. 13.31).13 Cato is li- onized again when Cicero claims alliteratively that Cato once attacked Piso with such language that “that most depraved and shameless person almost re- gretted his consulship” (ut illum hominem perditissimum atque impudentissi- mum paene iam provinciae paeniteret, Sest. 28.60–61). e power of these examples of rhetorical derision depends on verbal repetition, whether of syllable, vowel, or consonant.14 Such reverberation is constituent of the scathing ridicule designed to provoke uproarious laughter among jurors, senators, and Cicero’s other immediate audiences. at Cicero also serves up the virtus/voluptas theme to readers of his philosophical works—where he might have shed his oratorical positioning—is indicative of his strong animus against the Garden. Wordplay is a crucial element of Cicero’s jousting with the Epicurean Torquatus in the philosophical treatise On Ends, but the script Cicero writes for Torquatus is relatively colorless. As befits his characterization as a mild—but perhaps not overly astute— Epicurean, Torquatus’ replies are devoid of rhetorical flourish. Witty rejoinder is not his forte.15 For Cicero, however, memorable sounds are central to his routine formulation of an Epicurus who was as worthy of ridicule as was a Verres or a Clodia.

Virtus and Virility

Settling on a single translation of virtus and its plural is not always simple. e English cognate virtue captures the essence if we recognize the word vir (“man”) in the root and thus take “virtue” to be a masculine quality. Myles Mc- Donnell’s recent Roman Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic renders virtus as “manliness,” which is an ideal translation for the texts I treat here as long as we take “manliness” to refer to qualities that range from the visual to the ethical.16 McDonnell reminds us, too, that the connotations of virtus change ac-

13. All of these examples are cited by Laurand (1907: 226–27). 14. Marked alliteration and other phonetic repetitions are also crucial in Roman comedy and the “hoary tradition of the Italic carmen” (Dominik and Hall 2007: 58). 15. See Corbeill 1996: 194 on Roman admiration for “wit spoken in defense against humorous abuse, a technique the rhetoricians call humor in respondendo.” 16. McDonnell stresses the nonethical meaning of virtus in texts that predate Cicero.    115 cording to context and era and that its purview includes military valor.17 Im- plicit in the most vigorous Roman appeals to virtus is the contention that the word and the concept of “manliness” itself are the exclusive property of “real” men. Most applications of this concept to the Roman world belong inherently to the language of a dominant or hegemonic masculinity. Attributes of this traditional Roman manliness overlap with qualities that some readers of this book will identify with their own conceptions of manliness (whether articulated with irony or not): for example, the expectation that someone identified as “manly” will look rugged and act valiantly may have been as typical then as it is now. But as Robert Kaster wrote in a review of McDonnell’s Roman Manliness, translating virtus with manliness, a word out of common currency but highly evocative, provides a “useful oddity” that keeps us aware of the distance between Roman conceptions and our own.18 In the late republic, the meaning of virtus was contested enough to require frequent definition, but the texts of Cicero insist on its gendered quality. Cicero reminds us more than once that the word comes from that for “man.” In the same passage where he reminds us about the etymology (ex viro virtus),19 Ci- cero uses the plural of virtus to refer to all moral dispositions that are “up- right”;20 he then asserts that the particularly manly virtus (in the singular) is fortitude or courage (fortitudo, Tusc. 2.43). He writes further, “And the two main duties of fortitude are contempt of death and contempt of pain, which must be exercised if we wish to be endowed with manly virtues or—since the name virtus is borrowed from ‘men’—if we wish to be men” (Tusc. 2.43). At this point, Cicero turns to philosophy for guidance on attaining this masculine fortitude. Not coincidentally, the first philosopher he turns to is Epicurus, of whom he says, “Along comes Epicurus, not a malicious person [homo], but, rather, an excellent man [vir]: his advice matches his intelligence” (venit Epicu- rus, homo minime malus vel potius vir optimus tantum monet, quantum intel- ligit, Tusc. 2.44). Cicero has a low opinion of Epicurus’ intellect, and the subsequent sentences disparage Epicurus’ stand on pain. Why does Cicero label Epicurus as a vir? In this instance, Cicero modifies

17. McDonnell (2006: 12) argues that virtus did not have “an intrinsically broad semantic range” but that its meaning depended on the context. 18. Kaster 2007. 19. appellata est enim ex viro virtus (Tusc. 2.43). 20. omnes rectae animi adfectiones virtutes appellentur (Tusc. 2.43). 116       the word vir with a sarcastically positive modifier, as he does elsewhere when he calls Antony a “good man” or Sextus Naevius an “excellent man.”21 In Cicero’s orations, the word homo belongs to his “lexicon of factional abuse” and is frequently used to refer to men whom Cicero presents as foreign, of low status, or morally corrupt.22 In this instance, by referring sardonically to Epicurus as “not a malicious person” and then correcting himself with “but rather an excellent man,” Cicero draws our attention back to his immediately preceding assertions about manly comportment. e label vir connotes fortitude and manliness in general; the label homo refers to a male who has not or cannot become a man. e ironic modifying of vir with the superlative of the adjective bonus negates the positive connotations of the word vir, and the juxtaposition in reference to Epi- curus impugns his virility. us, in Cicero’s formulation, the Epicurean approach is the way not to achieve manliness. Also in the Tusculan Disputations, Cicero exploits the contrast in reference to the “eﬀeminate and unthinking” approaches to pain by relating a story about Gaius Marius. When Marius underwent an operation on his leg, he broke precedence by refusing to be put in restraints. But then he declined the operation for his other leg: “he bore pain like a vir; but like a homo, he refused to undergo more pain than necessary” (Tusc. 2.22.53). In Roman discussions of the Garden, articulating an antithesis between pleasure and manly virtue is complicated by the fact that the Latin virtus is the standard translation of the Greek arete (ἀρετή, “excellence”), a word often used by Epicurus when referring to moral excellence or ethical behavior. Epi- curus explicitly contrasts arete to his opponents’ misreadings of Epicurean “pleasure” or “living pleasurably” in the Letter to Menoeceus 132 (codified in part as the fifth saying in the Principal Doctrines). In Greek, arete is sometimes presented as though it had an etymological connection with the word for “man” (aner), but the relationship is looser and less persistent. When Cicero and then Seneca (in a later era) refer directly to Epicurean discussions of arete, their less gendered use of virtus as a translation of arete into Latin usually spills quickly over to usage that insists on the association of virtus (and therefore arete) with masculinity. This slippage results in an anachronistic and imprecise (or shall I say willful?) rendering of the Greek.23 But the tradition runs

21. Phil. 2.56; Quinct. 4.19. In his recent survey of Cicero’s style, Michael von Albrecht (2003: 101) identifies these phrases as a type of “elementary irony” that the mature Cicero would disdain. 22. Francesca Santoro L’Hoir 1992: 11. 23. See Barton 2001: 128.    117 deep. Roman usage of virtus as a translation may even have influenced later Greek uses of arete. In his On the Fact That Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleas- ant Life Impossible, Plutarch’s use of the Greek arete aligns closer than usual with the Latin virtus when he claims that the Epicurean belief in mortality leads them to lose courage and to belittle “arete and action” (Non posse 1104f). But the assertion that courage and action are manly traits is latent rather than explicit here. Despite Lucretius’ apparent detachment from contemporary controversies, he may be responding obliquely to the alliterative anti-Epicurean cliché when he couples the two words in an address to Memmius. In the first book of the De rerum natura, he tells his addressee that Memmius’ virtus and the pleasure Lu- cretius hopes to find in his friendship beguile the poet and persuade him to work through the night:

Sed tua me virtus tamen et sperata voluptas suavis amicitiae quem vis eﬀerre laborem suadet et inducit noctes vigilare serenas . . . (1.140–42)

[But still your virtus and the hoped-for pleasure of your sweet friendship urge me to take on any labor and to keep watch through the quiet of the night . . .]

Rather than being antithetical values, Memmius’ virtus leads to Lucretius’ pleasure. Lucretius’ frequent treatment of words that share sounds or letters as though the words have significant atomic elements in common strengthens his implicit claim that voluptas and virtus belong together.24 e mention of the labor entailed in the pursuit of the enjoyment of “sweet friendship” also makes an Epicurean point. Labor, like dolor, was imagined as something the Epicureans could not endure.25 In this passage, virtus may have the sound of a Romanized arete that does not call attention to the notion of manliness. But perhaps these

24. In Lucretius’ alphabetical atomism, the elements at play in a particular word must stay in order; otherwise, the substance changes. Here, then, the letters v-t-s are the essence shared by the words. On Lucretius’ treatment of letters as the primary elements of words, see De rerum natura 1.908–14 on ignis (“fire”) and lignum (“wood”) and Armstrong 1995. 25. In De finibus 1.24.7, Cicero contrasts Epicurean pleasure with “the dangers, the labors, even the pains” (pericula, labores, dolores etiam) that a good man undergoes for his country and friends. 118       lines reclaim manliness for Epicurus. In the beginning of his poem, Lucretius had attributed intellectual virtus (animi virtutem, DRN 1.70) to Epicurus. As Don Fowler wrote, Lucretius’ Epicurus is like a Roman soldier marching beyond the frontier, “so the poet advances into new areas of poetics, and thereby acquires something of the masculine virtus or manliness proper to real Roman men.”26

Virtus and Romanitas

at virtus is particularly Roman (and that pleasure is foreign) is an implicit claim throughout many anti-Epicurean sources. But in a variety of other Latin texts, the connection between virtus and true Romanness is made explicit. In his plea to declare Marc Antony as a public enemy, Cicero describes virtus as a quality that is “peculiar to the Roman genus and race” and that has been handed down as an inheritance from Roman forefathers (Philippics 4.13). In the context of a biography of the quintessentially foreign invader of Rome, Cicero’s contemporary Cornelius Nepos states categorically that everyone knows that the Romans outshine all other peoples in virtus (Hannibal 1). In a later era, Pliny, in his encyclopedic discussion of humanity and the peoples of the world in his Natural History, writes, “Of all the peoples in the whole world, the one that is without a doubt unsurpassed in virtus is the Roman race” (7.130). Like some of his predecessors, Pliny calls attention to the tendentious nature of this claim with his implicit protest: Roman virtus is unmatched “without a doubt” (haud dubie). As we have seen, Cicero also aligns virtus with allegiance to Rome and aligns pleasure with the abandonment of civic duty in the Pro Sestio, an oration that rails at times against the Epicurean and consul Calpurnius Piso Caesoni- nus. e authenticity and righteousness of these claims is asserted not only by the alliterative force of the sounds but by the elegant chiasmus (cum virtute, non cum desidia, cum dignitate, non cum voluptate [Sest. 66.138]). Many cultures might claim manliness and bravery in general as central constituents of their national character. But the particularity of Roman manliness comes further to the fore when we examine the broader constellation of moral qualities that are said to make a Roman man. In On Ends, when Cicero presents the constituents of “the honorable” (honestum, a quality that his imagined Epicureans spurn), he enumerates wisdom, justice, courage, and a fourth

26. Fowler 2002: 153.    119 value that entails self-regulation and restraint (ordo et moderatio). is fourth value, he tells Torquatus, “dreads temerity and does not dare injure anyone by impudent word or deed; and has scruples against doing or saying anything that might seem insufficiently manly [parum virile]” (Fin. 2.47.14). A quality with a close relationship to this self-restraint and another hallmark of correct masculinity is pudicitia. In a work addressed to his young son (e Classification of Rhetoric), Cicero lists four things in whose name an action may be rhetorically justified: filial devotion, pudicitia, religion, and country (aut pietatis aut pudici- tiae aut religionis aut patriae nomine, Part. 42). Later in the same essay, he enumerates three items that are constitutive of the good and the necessary: life, pudicitia, and freedom (vita, pudicitia, libertas, Part. 86 ). e word pudicitia describes a type of sexual morality but is so specific to Roman culture that translation into English is as vexed as that of virtus. In her recent study of Roman sexual morality, Rebecca Langlands describes Roman pudicitia as “a concept that belongs to a different and distant culture and a different way of thinking about sex and about ethics.”27 A crucial indication of that cultural difference is that pudicitia is required not only of women but also of Roman men. While it is a commonplace in Roman texts as well as in modern scholarship to use the word to refer to the sexual modesty and chastity of respectable women, Langlands shows that Cicero treats pudicitia—a type of manly chastity and sexual restraint—as a “core civic virtue,” linking it with appropriate masculinity as well as with allegiance to Rome.28 It is important to keep in mind that modern Mediterranean conceptions of manliness differ from those of ancient Rome regarding sexual prowess, which seems not to have a place in the constellation of qualities identified with Roman virtus. Attention to differing views of the meaning of male sexual activity highlights even more intensely the questionable gender of the Epicurean male. In many twentieth- and twenty-first-century societies, sexual prowess is an important element of conventional constructions of masculinity, and frequent sexual contact with women implies a type of manliness that may be expressed in entirely positive terms. But as Langlands has shown in her treatment of the ancient Roman concept of pudicitia, “Far from the Don Juan stereotype of virility being proved through sexual conquest, the inability to prevent oneself from serial debauchery is seen as a sign of weakness akin to the desire to be pene-

27. Langlands 2006: 3. 28. Langlands 2006: 281. 120       trated by other men.”29 As scholarship from the last two decades has demonstrated, invective against men sometimes did not diﬀerentiate between the victim’s alleged sexual relations with women and those with men. Cicero, for example, casts Verres as “quite the man among women, and a sluttish girl among men” (magis vir inter mulieres, impura inter viros muliercula, Verres 2.192). In a more general context, Catharine Edwards has described how the Roman conception of luxury and lust as “cognate vices” is evident from polemics that use similar terms to articulate the condemnation of overindulgence in both food and sex. As she puts it, “the skirmishes between Roman moralists and alleged voluptuaries took place on the conceptual borders between masculine and feminine, public and private, Roman and alien.”30 An awareness of Roman concerns about the maintenance of male pudicitia helps further explain why the view of Epicurean men as eﬀeminates seemed logical and coherent to a hostile audience. Greeks who understood Epicurean pleasures as the pleasures of “nonstop drinking and revelry,” “physical enjoyment of boys and women,” or “fish or other elements of a lavish banquet” (Ep. Men. 132) would question the morality of the Garden. But they would not necessarily impute a deviant sexuality or gender to the allegedly miscreant Epi- cureans. Roman culture, however, attributed unseemly appetites (for sex and for food) to unmanly men.31 us the alleged womanishness of anyone with a penchant for voluptas.

The Antiquity of the Virtus/Voluptas Figure

In Rome, the stylized virtue/pleasure antithesis that plays on the repetitions of the sounds of virtus and voluptas is thoroughly enmeshed with anti-Epicurean polemic and seems not to have been harnessed for other purposes. At one point in On Duties, Cicero uses the terms in reference to philosophical hedonism more generally, but the point there is to introduce Epicurus, who adapted the sentiment when the Cyreniacs went out of style.32 Cicero comes close to de- ploying the figure in non-Epicurean contexts, but the word position there pre-

29. Langlands 2006: 293. 30. Edwards 1993: 5. 31. Corbeill (1996: 143) examines how “[o]rators of the late Republic conflate the phenomena of the immodest banquet and the effeminate male.” 32. Atqui ab Aristippo Cyrenaici atque Annicerii philosophi nominati omne bonum in voluptate posuerunt virtutemque censuerunt ob eam rem esse laudandam, quod efficiens esset voluptatis. Quibus obsoletis floret Epicurus, eiusdem fere adiutor auctorque sententiae (Off. 3.116.6).    121 vents alliteration from being prominent.33 Yet both Cicero and Quintilian (born around 35 CE) claim implicitly that the figure had great antiquity through unambiguous tracing of the virtus/voluptas antithesis back to Hel- lenistic and classical Greek texts. is gives the formula a complex history, but a closer look reveals that the sources named by Cicero and Quintilian do not focus directly on an antithesis between manly virtue and pleasure. In fact, while the word voluptas is there, the word hedone does not figure at all in the extant Greek source that both Quintilian and Cicero cite. In e Orator’s Education (Institutio oratoria), Quintilian treats the use of virtus and voluptas (as a contrasting pair) as a type of rhetorical personification:

Sed formas quoque fingimus saepe, ut Famam Vergilius, ut Voluptatem ac Vir- tutem, quem ad modum a Xenophonte traditur, Prodicus, ut Mortem ac Vitam, quas contendentes in satura tradit, Ennius. (9.2.36)

[Again, we oen invent Personifications, as Virgil invented Rumour, Prodicus (according to Xenophon’s report) Pleasure and Virtue, and Ennius Death and Life, whom he represents in a Satire as debating with each other.]34

Unfortunately, the literary passage where Ennius presents “Death and Life” is lost, but readers of the Aeneid will remember how Virgil’s Fama (Rumor) wreaks havoc on the lives of Dido and Aeneas. Fama is as terrifying, foul, and destructive a demon as they come (Aen. 4.173–95). Quintilian’s reference to the personified Virtus and Voluptas looks straightforward, but he has neglected to cite the Latin intermediary for Xenophon’s Greek. His citation may indicate that he knows a Latin text in which personification was as explicit as it is in Vir- gil, where Fama has a head, arms, and running feet. We are le wondering if he has in mind a vivid scene in a (now lost) Roman literary text or if it is Cicero’s (or some other Roman writer’s) interpretation of Prodicus’ story that made such an impression on Quintilian. Cicero’s is extant: in On Duties, Cicero re-

33. Manly virtue and pleasure are opposed in the same sentence in reference to Verres, but the more operative alliteration is between virtus and victoria: Certe maior est virtutis victori- aeque iucunditas quam ista voluptas quae percipitur ex libidine et cupiditate (Verres 2.1.57.21). Virtus is also contrasted with pleasure or pleasures in Pro Caelio 39.3 and 41.4; but there, too, the words’ positions diminish the potential for effective alliteration, and the syntax does not draw attention to their opposition. Despite the doubtful pairing of the two words, it is possible that Cicero means to insinuate that his target had Epicurean-like qualities. 34. Translation by Russell (2001: 53). 122       lates a story the Greek Sophist Prodicus told about Heracles (according to Xenophon). In Cicero’s version of the story, Heracles is given the choice between two paths of life: Pleasure or Virtue (duas . . . .vias, unam Voluptatis, al- teram Virtutis, Off. 1.118). e long-suffering Heracles, who will later become a hero of the Stoics, chooses the latter.35 e Greek original has also survived, and there we find not two paths but two women. Both are beautiful, but one is austere and modest, while the other is adorned in such a way as to exaggerate her beauty and to put her body on display. e immodest woman runs to meet Heracles, crying, “If you befriend me, I will lead you on the sweetest and easiest path of life [ἡδίστην τε καὶ ῥᾴστην ὁδὸν], and you will taste every pleasure [τερπνῶν] and live without hardship.” Her promises include a life free from war and trouble and full of delightful experiences with food, drink, sex, and so beds. Heracles asks her name, and she replies, “My friends call me Happiness, but those who hate me nickname me Vice” (Οἱ μὲν ἐμοὶ φίλοι, ἔφη, καλοῦσί με Εὐδαιμονίαν, οἱ δὲ μισοῦντές με ὑποκοριζόμενοι ὀνομάζουσι Κακίαν, Memorabilia 2.1.26). Next, it is revealed that the woman who offers the difficult life is named “Virtue” (Άρετή). But apart from its appearance in the cognate word “sweetest” (ἡδίστην), hedone plays no role in the story. e choice of the word virtus is unremarkable, but it is a pity that we cannot know who transformed “happiness” into “pleasure.” e virtus/voluptas figure also did not appear fully formed in Cicero’s (lost) Hellenistic Greek source. Cicero uses voluptas and virtus in translating a nonextant Greek text when he tells how the Stoic Cleanthes (a contemporary of Epicurus) used to describe a hypothetical painting of Pleasure. In the painting, the personified Pleasure—lavishly dressed and regally ornamented—is surrounded by her slaves the Virtues, who whisper to her, “We virtues were born to serve you; this is our only job” (Fin. 2.69). Earlier in the same work, Cicero had alluded to a similar trope by asking, “Why should you introduce pleasure into a gathering of virtues, ‘as though you were introducing a prosti-

35. e contrast Lucretius draws between Epicurus and Heracles (DRN 5.22–54) may suggest an allusion to the idea that Heracles was a Stoic. Also possibly relevant sources are Aeneid 8.185-267 and Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations 4. On Heracles as a clearly Stoic hero in Seneca, see King 1971: 215–22 and Auvray 1989. Sedley (2001: 150 n. 86) writes that in early Greek sources, Heracles was a Cynic hero, not a Stoic. is would support the idea that the Stoiciz- ing of Heracles was a later, Roman phenomenon.    123 tute into the company of maidens’?”36 e Stoics were emphatic about the relationship between virtue and pleasure: pleasure may sometimes be an out- come of the pursuit of arete or virtus, but those qualities must never be sub- servient to pleasure. e anticipation of pleasure cannot be the point of virtus. Seneca (who oen identifies himself as a Stoic) oﬀers an example from agri- culture. When a field has been ploughed for crops, some flowers may grow between the rows. But although the flowers may please the eye, they were not the goal of the sower’s labor: “e farmer had another purpose; the flowers are just additional. us voluptas is neither the reward nor the cause of virtus but its by-product” (sic voluptas non est merces nec causa virtutis sed accessio, De vita beata 8.9). e context of Seneca’s remarks is his extended censure of Epicure- anism in On the Happy Life, to which I will return later in this chapter. Given the Stoic concern with virtue and pleasure, it seems logical to locate the original source for the virtus/voluptas figure in Roman Stoicism. Torquatus certainly refers to Stoics’ usage when he cites their claim that virtus needs no voluptas (virtutem autem . . . voluptatem atque, Fin. 1.61). But while Cleanthes’ Greek may have been influential, identifying it as a close source (when translated into Latin) of the figure as we have it elsewhere does not satisfy. First, the notion of virtues as handmaids to pleasure is not an element of the virtus/voluptas figure. Second, the shi from plural to singular also changes the sense. When the personified Virtues are presented as a group, as they are in Cicero’s description of the painting that Cleanthes described in Greek, they are of course represented in the plural: “the virtues” rather than the singular virtus. But elsewhere Cicero uses virtus in the singular, thus highlighting an implicit claim that “manly virtue” is a singular and uncontested Roman value: there can be no Roman “manlinesses.” Occasionally, Cicero and Torquatus seem to be waging a battle between the singular and the plural. In his interrogation of what constitutes a good life, Torquatus describes philosophical approaches not to virtus but to the virtues (e.g., wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice; Fin. 1.42–50). Torquatus refers not to Roman virtus but to the plural of arete, while Cicero holds up virtus itself as the exemplary badge of masculinity. Xenophon’s story of the personified Arete and Evil predates both Epicure- anism and Stoicism, but it does seem likely that Cleanthes’ personification of virtues and pleasure was engaged with early conflicts between the Stoa and the

36. quid enim necesse est, tamquam meretricem in matronarum coetum, sic voluptatem in virtutum concilium adducere? (Fin. 2.12). 124      

Garden. ese antecedents may have inspired a Roman Stoic text (oral or written, but now lost) to create the virtus/voluptas discourse I explore in this chapter. Yet it may be reasonable to pin its invention on Cicero.

Pleasure Is Pleasure

Cicero’s insistence on the diametric opposition of virtus to voluptas works in concert with a complementary claim he makes in equally categorical terms. is is his blustering contention that there is only one way to translate the Greek ἡδονή into Latin:

et quidem saepe quaerimus verbum Latinum par Graeco et quod idem valeat; hic nihil fuit, quod quaereremus: nullum inveniri verbum potest quod magis idem declaret Latine, quod Graece, quam declarat voluptas. (Fin. 2.13)

[We oen search for a Latin equivalent to a Greek word with the same connotation. But here no search was necessary. No other word can be found that signifies a Greek word in Latin more exactly than voluptas does.]

Cicero is not merely asserting that there is a simple and unavoidable, one-to- one correspondence between hedone and voluptas. More than that, his claim here is that hedone presents a unique case: no other Greek word is so easy to translate. Elsewhere, Cicero argues that the translation of philosophical Greek discourse into Latin prose is a task that requires care and expertise. While clumsy translators (interpretes indiserti) might insist on word-for-word translation, Cicero is willing to use several Latin words to translate a Greek one, and he is even willing to leave a word in the original Greek when necessary (Fin. 3.15).37 Why is it that no such subtleties are required in the case of hedone? Why should a particular word possess such extreme and unprecedented translatabil- ity? Cicero’s persistence makes clear that he does not make his claim for seamless, unproblematic equivalence by accident. With incredulity, he exclaims to Torquatus, egone non intellego, quid sit ἡδονή Graece, Latine voluptas? utram tandem linguam nescio? deinde qui fit, ut ego nesciam, sciant omnes, quicumque Epicurei esse voluerunt? (“Do I not understand what hedone is in Greek, and

37. For a recent treatment of Cicero’s translation of Greek terms, see Jonathan Zarecki 2009. Also relevant are Adams 2003 and Baldwin 1992.    125 what voluptas is in Latin? Which language do I not know? And moreover, how comes it that I do not know, when any people at all who want to be Epicureans do know?” Fin. 2.12). He challenges again, many sentences later, Satisne igitur videor vim verborum tenere, an sum etiam nunc vel Graece loqui vel Latine do- cendus? (“Now do you think I do not grasp the significance of the words, or do I still need to be taught to speak Greek or Latin?” Fin. 2.15). Cicero’s reitera- tions heighten my suspicion that he is committing “the scandal of putting the translated in the service of the translating culture.”38 As translators and theo- rists who focus on the ethical ramifications of translation of contemporary texts today have stressed, a translation can signal cultural diﬀerence by acknowledging distance and by preserving the salient details of cultural particularity. Ci- cero’s refusal to consider a “thick translation” prohibits contextualization: to allow any distancing between Greek hedone and Roman voluptas would be to question their sameness.39 It is ironic that—in the same work—Cicero slips in the word cupiditas (“desire,” “lust,” or “greed”) as another translation of “pleasures.”40 Even more ironic is the fact that Cicero elsewhere derides Piso’s mis- understanding of Epicurean voluptas: “He did not ask what sort, or when, or how, but just devoured the word itself” (cuius et quo tempore et quo modo, non quaerebat, verbum ipsum . . . devorarat, Sest. 23). Ostensibly, Cicero’s remonstrations are rejoinders to an Epicurean tradition of identifying pleasure as the absence of pain, which Cicero presents as a contradiction of the opposition of pleasure to pain in Epicurean theory (Fin. 2.12).41 In a passage where he interrogates the Greek philosopher (who, as to be

38. Venuti 1998: 4. Venuti describes ways that a translator might avoid inappropriate “ideo- logical slanting” (3). 39. Kwame Anthony Appiah proposed the term thick translation, inspired by Cliﬀord Geertz’s coinage of the term thick description in describing an approach toward the translation of African proverbs in the Twi language. Also helpful in grasping Cicero’s bearing is Spi- vak’s suggestion that a translator must first grasp the “protocols” of the original author and leave “traces” of the complexities of the source language. Appiah (1993: 818) describes the focus on a need for a fixed, literal translation as part of a “refusal to attend to how various people really were or are.” 40. His reference (Fin. 2.23 and 24) to Principal Doctrine 3. 41. Cicero conjoins his ridicule of this idea with his scorn for Epicurean theories about “cat- astematic” or (in Cicero’s translation) “static” (status; e.g., Fin. 2.29), as opposed to “kinetic,” pleasure. Epicurean theory subordinates the kinetic pleasures (active enjoyable stimulation) to the static pleasure of being without pain or distress. ere is no scholarly concensus on the value of Cicero’s testimony for elucidating Epicurean theories of pleasure. As Michael Stokes has written, “unlike our other sources, who say too little on this topic, Cicero says too much for comfort” (Stokes 1995: 154). 126       expected, speaks exclusively in Latin), Epicurus is made to state that “the opposite of pain is not pleasure but the absence of pain” (dolori non voluptas con- traria est sed doloris privatio, 2.28). We know from Cicero’s Torquatus and from Philodemus that later Epicureans sometimes expressed disagreement about this issue, but the theoretical construct seems to have good lineage, and both Torquatus and Philodemus promote it. Plutarch, too, will express great conster- nation with Epicurean talk of “not pain” or “painlessness” and whether it was to be located in the body or the spirit (1089d). Yet Cicero’s ventriloquism is probably unfair. ere is no Greek text that matches precisely the line Cicero attributes to Epicurus (“the opposite of pain is not pleasure but the absence of pain”). Rather than flatly denying that the opposite of ἡδονή is pain, extant Epi- curean texts define the telos both as pleasure and as the absence of pain (ἀπονία), a distinction that demonstrates that internal Epicurean discussions were more nuanced than Cicero implies.42 Powell remarks that the translation issue compounds the oversimplification: “It clearly does not make sense to define voluptas as a settled state of absence of pain, but it may not have been quite so obviously ludicrous to define ἡδονή in that way (at least aer the Epicureans had been doing so for two centuries).”43 Cicero’s case for the stark equivalence of voluptas and hedone has a more fundamental motivation than is implied by his exasperation with an Epicurean claim that pleasure is the absence of pain. Raising, once again, the specter of the Epicurean hetaera (clearly a metaphor here), he aligns pleasure with prostitu- tion and asserts that rehabilitation is impossible. Pleasure’s one-dimensional character is unmistakable: quid enim necesse est, tamquam meretricem in matronarum coetum, sic voluptatem in virtutum concilium adducere? (“Why should you introduce pleasure into a gathering of virtues, as though you were introducing a prostitute into the company of matrons?” Fin. 2.12). Next, Cicero progresses to oblique confrontation with Epicurus’ well-known correction of widespread misapprehensions about Epicurean pleasure. As Epicurus wrote to

42. For evidence from Philodemus, see Tsouna 2007: 15–16. Tsouna (16 n. 6) mentions, “Demetrius Laco insists that Epicurus considers the τέλος, pleasure, as the removal of pain (PHerc. 1012, I.1–8) and corrects Epicurean copies (ἀντίγραφα) which contain equivocal for- mulations of that thesis (XXXVIII.1–13).” Cicero’s Epicurean spokesman Torquatus also says that later Epicureanism was not univocal on this issue in De finibus. It is diﬃcult to determine how fictional a character Torquatus is. Tsouna (2001 and 2007: 14–15) suggests that Philode- mus was Cicero’s main source for Torquatus’ explication of Epicurean doctrine. 43. Powell 1995b: 299.    127

Menoeceus, “whenever we say that pleasure is the τέλος, we do not mean the pleasures of degenerates” (Ep. Men. 131). In Cicero’s view, a doctrine of “pleasure” admits of no subtleties, and once the word pleasure is out, any attempt at refinement is mere backpedaling. Continuing with the image of Pleasure among the matrons, Cicero writes,

invidiosum nomen est, infame, suspectum. Itaque hoc frequenter dici solet a vobis, non intellegere nos, quam dicat Epicurus voluptatem. quod quidem mihi si quando dictum est—est autem dictum non parum saepe—, etsi satis clemens sum in disputando, tamen interdum soleo subirasci. (Fin. 2.12)

[Her name itself is odious, notorious, suspect. For this reason, you Epicureans have a frequent habit of saying that we do not know what Epicurus meant by pleasure. When I hear this assertion (and I hear it none too seldom), though as a disputant I am a good-tempered enough, I get a little angry.]

For Cicero, the Epicurean insistence that “the pleasures of degenerates” are not the Epicurean pleasures is simply a refusal to acknowledge the definition of voluptas. He agrees with the Epicureans that making oneself sick from overindulgence would have to be unpleasant: “None of us would think that degenerates of that sort live pleasantly [iucunde]” (Fin. 2.23). But then he goes on to list refined but extravagant pleasures that he implies Epicureans do intend to enjoy. ese are the pleasures of sophisticated and elegant men “with the best cooks, bakers, fish, birds, game, all these exquisite things;” fine wine, and great entertainment in sumptuous surroundings. (Note, once again, the fish, the non-Epicurean pleasure cataloged in Ep. Men. 132.) Cicero denies that degenerates of this latter sort can live happily (bene . . . aut beate [Fin. 2.23]). e up- shot is that Epicurus’ claim that “pleasure is not pleasure” does not hold water. e diﬀerence between the two types of degenerate pleasures proves “not that voluptas is not voluptas, but that voluptas is not the highest good” (non ut voluptas ne sit voluptas, sed ut voluptas non sit summum bonum, Fin. 2.24). Cicero insists, moreover, on the self-evidence of the physicality of pleasure: omnes enim iucundum motum, quo sensus hilaretur Graece ἡδονήν, Latine voluptatem vocant (“Everyone calls a pleasing stimulation of the senses hedone in Greek and voluptas in Latin,” Fin. 2.8). He painstakingly concedes that voluptas has two connotations: “gladness of mind” (laetitiam in animo) and “a pleasing sensation of delight in the body” (commotionem suavem iucunditatis in cor- 128       pore, 2.13). Yet he stresses the bodily aspects by appealing to good usage: in standard Latin (omnium Latine loquentium more), “voluptas” is a pleasure that is felt by one of the senses (2.14).44 us it emerges that, at its most basic level, Cicero’s objection to Epicurus’ correction of received opinion is two-pronged: Cicero wishes to deny that intellectual or spiritual pleasures are significant aspects of Epicurean hedone, and he wants to downplay Epicurean teachings about the need to discriminate between beneficial pleasures and those that ought to be rejected. Instead of recognizing the centrality of the notion of “choice and avoidance” to Epicurean ethics, Cicero treats it as mere posturing. e translation of hedone with voluptas provides a high-inference shortcut for Roman commentators on Epicureanism. Pleasures connoted by voluptas are more obviously connected with the body, and the word itself is “odious, notorious, suspect” (invidiosum nomen est, infame, suspectum). A look at two hostile synopses of Epicureanism in Greek authors will be instructive here. In Plutarch’s Non posse, the enthusiastically anti-Epicurean interlocutor eon en- capsulates Epicureanism thusly: “they think that the good resides around the belly, and around all those other pores of the flesh through which pleasure and not-pain flow; and that all things good and wise were invented for the sake of the pleasure of the belly (and for the good anticipation of this pleasure, as the wise Metrodorus said).”45 It is no accident that eon uses the word for “belly” or the phrase for “pleasure of the belly” in place of the word hedone. In Greek, the word for “pleasure” does not, on its own, convey the pejorative sense that eon’s attack will require. In fact, Plutarch’s entire piece is built around the claim that Epicureanism is—ironically—deeply unpleasant. e early Epi- curean Colotes had written a treatise called “at It Is Not Possible to Live according to the Teachings of the Other Philosophers” (Ότι κατὰ τὰ τῶν ἄλλων φιλοσόφων δόγματα οὐδὲ ζῆν ἔστιν, Non posse 1086c–d). Plutarch’s eon proposes a riposte: “Let us try to prove, if ever we are able, that it is not possible to live pleasantly [ἡδέως] according to their teachings!” (1087b) e diseases that wracked Epicurean bodies will provide eon with useful evidence, but he ar-

44. in eo autem voluptas omnium Latine loquentium more ponitur, cum percipitur ea, quae sensum aliquem moveat, iucunditas. hanc quoque iucunditatem, si vis, transfer in animum (Fin. 2.14). 45. οἴονται δὲ περὶ γαστέρα τἀγαθὸν εἶναι καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους πόρους τῆς σαρκὸς ἅπαντας, δι’ὧν ἡδονὴ καὶ μὴ ἀλγηδὼν ἐπεισέρχεται· καὶ πάντα τὰ καλὰ καὶ σοφὰ ἐξευρήματα τῆς περὶ γαστέρα ἡδονῆς ἕνεκα γεγονέναι καὶ τῆς ὑπὲρ ταύτης ἐλπίδος ἀγαθῆς, ὡς ὁ σοφὸς εἴρηκε Μητρόδωρος.    129 gues also that the Epicurean outlook imbues their lives with pervasive psychic pains as well: “If renown is pleasant [ἡδύ], disgrace is painful [λυπηρόν]; and nothing is more disgraceful than lack of friends, idleness, irreligion, hedonism, or being regarded with contempt”(1100a). In Plutarch’s view, the pleasures that are oﬀ-limits to Epicureans are honorable pleasures that more decent men will enjoy. An oration by a contemporary of Plutarch, the Greek orator and popular philosopher Dio Chrysostom, also demonstrates how the word hedone, as a less suﬃcient hostile descriptor for Epicureanism than the value-laden voluptas, needed buttressing. Meditating on human awareness of the divine in his Olympic Discourse (delivered at Olympia in the year 97 CE), Dio Chrysostom contrasts people in general with the perverse Epicureans, who have chosen to block their ears. In formulating his quick, hostile characterization of Epicure- anism, he proposes three synonyms, all of which have unambiguously negative moral connotations. Despising the gods, the Epicureans worship an evil female demon, “a certain wantonness [τρυφή], or great indolence [ῥαθυμία] and unre- strained lewdness [ὕβρις], whom they call Pleasure [ἡδονή], a womanish god indeed,” whom they honor and worship in Asiatic style (with cymbals or tambourines and pipes).46 Dio’s claim that the Epicureans worship in Asiatic style is especially pointed, given the context at Olympia (the quintessentially Greek cultic center). According to Dio’s account, Hedone is merely a Greek name the Epicureans have given to this foreign she-demon. How would a less tendentious translator bring ἡδονή into Latin? One might reasonably argue (as some Latin-speaking Epicureans surely would have) that voluptas is in fact an entirely acceptable rendering of hedone—provided that it is not presented as the opposite of virtus. Yet a Roman Epicurean other than Ci- cero’s Torquatus (a historical person whose words are formulated by Cicero years aer the fictional setting of the conversation) might be chary of using the word voluptas. In fact, one of Cicero’s correspondents opts for nontranslation. is is the Roman statesman Gaius Cassius Longinus, who had become an Epi- curean two or three years before he wrote to Cicero in 45 BCE.47 Cicero had mentioned Epicurean ideas (in an unfavorable light) in previous letters, fram-

46. ἄνθρωποί τινες . . . ὑπερφρονοῦσι τὰ θεῖα, καὶ μίαν ἱδρυσάμενοι δαίμονα πονηρὰν καὶ ἄλυπον, τρυφήν τινα ἢ ῥὰθυμίαν πολλὴν καὶ ἀνειμένην ὕβριν, ἡδονὴν ἐπονομάζοντες, γυναικείαν τῷ ὄντι θεόν, προτιμῶσι καὶ θεραπεύουσι κυμβάλοις τισὶν ἢ ψόφοις καὶ αὐλοῖς ὑπὸ σκότος αὐλουμένοις (Dio Chrysostom 12.36). 47. Ad fam. 16.3. 130       ing his own philosophical outlook as serious and profound, while characteriz- ing Cassius’ as “based in the kitchen” (Ad fam. 15.18.1). In a letter of the next year (45 BCE), Cicero described his correspondent’s turn toward Epicureanism as his “divorce” from virtus in favor of inglorious voluptas. He had also alluded to Cassius’ conversion to the Garden as Cassius’ new doubt that “the good must be chosen for its own sake” (a Greek philosophical phrase Cicero quotes in Greek; Ad fam. 15.17.3). ere Cicero’s reference to Cassias’ philosophical “doubt” is based on a one-dimensional but not incorrect characterization: for an Epicurean, pleasure and the good are conjoined. Cassius sends a gracious but trenchant response in which he treats the exchange of letters as friendly repartee: “I feel that I am speaking and joking with you face to face” (videor enim, cum praesente loqui et iocari [Ad. fam. 15.19.1]). In his rejoinder, he reclaims for the Garden a commitment to the good and to justice by quoting (in part) the categorical statement from the Letter to Menoe- ceus encapsulated in the fih saying of the Principal Doctrines: “It is impossible to live pleasurably unless one lives in accordance with wisdom, goodness, and justice; nor can one live in accordance with wisdom, goodness, and justice without living pleasurably.” When quoting this precept, Cassius declines to translate ἡδονή or ἡδέως, switching back to Greek when he needs to mention “pleasure” and “pleasurably.”

diﬃcile est enim persuadere hominibus τὸ καλὸν δι’ αὑτὸ αἱρετὸν esse; ἡδονὴν vero et ἀταραξίαν virtute, iustitia, τῷ καλῷ parari et verum et probabile est ; ipse enim Epicurus, a quo omnes Catii et Amafinii, mali verborum interpretes, profi- ciscuntur, dicit: οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ἄνευ τοῦ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως ζῆν. (Ad fam. 15.19.2)

[Yes, it is diﬃcult to persuade people that “the good must be chosen for its own sake”; but it is both demonstrable and true that hedone [pleasure] and ataraxia [tranquillity] are to be obtained through virtus, justice, and the “good.” Epicu- rus himself, from whom all those Catiuses and Amafiniuses—poor translators of words—take their source, says, “It is impossible to live pleasurably unless one lives in accordance with goodness and justice.”]48

48. Cassius’ omission of the word for “prudence” or “wise understanding” is due to his tai- loring to the context of political action (cf. Griﬃn 1995: 344–45).    131

Cassius’ mention of inept translators of Epicurus, “all those Catiuses and Amafiniuses—poor translators of words,” makes unmistakable his reluctance to use the word voluptas. e context implies—I believe—that Cassius felt that Catius’ and Amafinius’ clumsy introduction of the word voluptas into the Ro- man Epicurean lexicon had misrepresented Epicurean hedonism to Roman readers. Also implied is an awareness that the adverb ἡδέως (“pleasantly” or “sweetly”) was also diﬃcult to translate in an Epicurean context because of the lack of a suitable Latin adverb that was also cognate to a word for “pleasure” in Latin.49 is lack of a cognate noun/adverb pair poses a problem in English also, as neither “pleasantly” nor “pleasurably” seems quite adequate. Translators oen choose instead to translate the adverb/verb pair ἡδέως ζῆν as “to live a pleasant life.” Lucretius was not squeamish about embracing the word voluptas, but his other terms for Epicurean pleasure make frequent appearances, particularly in the proem to book 2 of the De rerum natura, which presents a synopsis of Epicurean values: detachment from strife, the achievement of tranquillity, release from fear, the enjoyment of simple pleasures in good company, and the study of natural science. ree times in the first six lines of book 2, we meet the word with which the book starts: “sweet” (suave), an adjective that is far less sensual than the noun voluptas.50 In the same letter, Cassius also challenges Cicero’s habitual juxtaposition of virtus and voluptas. Cicero had mentioned the excellent character and record of Pansa, the Roman general and politician who governed Bithynia in 47–46. As Cicero acknowledges, Pansa happened to be an Epicurean. It was in an ironic yet respectful reference to Pansa that Cicero had written that “the good must be chosen for its own sake.” us Cassius continues his defense of Epicureanism, again using Greek when referring to it: ltaque et Pansa, qui ἡδονὴν sequitur virtutem retinet, et ii, qui a vobis φιλήδονοι vocantur, sunt φιλόκαλοι et φιλοδίκαιοι omnisque virtutes et colunt et retinent (“And so Pansa, who follows ‘pleasure,’ retains virtus, and those who are called by you [plural] ‘lovers of pleasure’ are

49. Cicero’s Torquatus seems to use iucunde, “agreeably” (Fin. 1.42), instead of the adverb voluptarie, “pleasurably”; but the latter was rare in Latin and may have been a late coinage. 50. On Lucretius’ use of suavis, dulcis, and iucundus (with attention paid to the usage of Ci- cero and Seneca), see Fowler 2002: 33–34, with bibliography. When Cicero uses the words suavis (fiy-five times, by Fowler’s count) and dulcis (seventeen times), Epicureanism is rarely the context. One wonders whether Cicero was aware that suavis (and not voluptas) is cognate with ἡδύς (“sweet”) and ἡδονή. 132      

‘lovers of the good’ and ‘lovers of justice,’ and they retain and cultivate all of the virtues,” Ad fam. 15.19.3). Although, in referring to Pansa, he quotes Cicero’s usual use of the word virtus (singular), he then refers to Epicurean virtutes (virtus in the plural). His use of the plural sounds deliberate and significant, particularly in light of the fact that Torquatus sometimes uses the plural as well. e plural implies that what matters to these two Epicureans is not masculinity so much but a range of virtues.

Over the Top: Seneca on Manly Virtue and Pleasure

Over one hundred years later, in an essay addressed to his brother Gallio titled On the Happy Life, Seneca oﬀers the following illustration of the virtus/voluptas theme:

Altum quiddam est virtus, excelsum et regale, invictum, infatigabile; voluptas hu- mile, servile, imbecillum, caducum, cuius statio ac domicilium fornices et popinae sunt. Virtutem in templo convenies, in foro, in curia, pro muris stantem, pulveru- lentam, coloratam, callosas habentem manus ; voluptatem latitantem saepius ac tenebras captantem circa balinea ac sudatoria ac loca aedilem metuentia, mollem, enervem, mero atque unguento madentem, pallidam aut fucatam et medicamentis pollinctam. (De vita beata 7.3)

[Virtus is something exalted, something elevated and regal, unconquered, unfaltering; voluptas is lowly, servile, feeble, and decaying, whose hovel and staging ground are the brothels and the taverns. Virtus you will find in the temple, in the forum, in the senate house, defending the city walls, dusty and sunburnt, hands callused. Voluptas you will find most oen seeking out darkness, lurking around the baths and sweating rooms and places that fear the magistrates; so, languid, reeking of wine and perfume, pallid or else painted and made up like a corpse.]

is passage recalls the many Greek texts that “express a gender-oriented distinction between public and private both in terms of persons, places, and, more abstractly, spheres of life.”51 It is not novel to cite Seneca’s formulation as a radical example of Roman expositions of correct masculinity and its polar opposite. But most discussions of this splendidly over-the-top (and yet paradig-

51. Cohen 1991: 71.    133 matic) passage do not remark on its specific context. e manliness/pleasure dichotomy alone should alert us to the fact that the Garden is the focus here. Closer examination reveals that the passage comes from the prologue to an extended polemic against the Epicurean claim that pleasure is the crucial component of “the happy life.” e professed aim of On the Happy Life is to interrogate the various philosophical schools in search of guidance for achieving happiness. e essay begins, “Everyone wishes to live happily, my brother Gallio, but they cannot see their way.” Philosophy is to provide direction. Because the Epicureans—in their “factory of pleasure”—might claim to hold a monopoly on happiness, Seneca turns first to a refutation of their teachings, focusing on Epicurus for roughly one-third of the piece before turning to other philosophical approaches.52 Al- though he mentions Epicureans later in the piece, he sums up the main anti- Epicurean tirade at 16.1, where he asserts, “erefore true happiness is founded upon virtus.” Seneca’s rant against Epicurus begins quietly.53

Vident et in iliis qui summum bonum dixerunt quam turpi illud loco posuerint. Itaque negant posse voluptatem a virtute diduci et aiunt nec honeste quemquam vivere ut non iucunde vivat, nec iucunde ut non honeste quoque. Non uideo quomodo ista tam diversa in eandem copulam coiciantur. Quid est, oro uos, cur sep- arari voluptas a virtute non possit? (De vita beata 7.1)

[Even those who have said that the highest good is in the belly see in how dis- honorable a place they have placed it. And thus they deny that voluptas can be severed from virtus, and say that no one can live honorably without living pleasantly, nor pleasurably without living honorably. I do not see how two things so divergent could be cast in the same mold. Why on earth cannot pleasure be separated from virtus?]

It is especially important here to leave virtus untranslated, because Seneca is paraphrasing the text from Epicurus’ Letter to Menoeceus that responds to crit-

52. Seneca refers to the Garden as a “factory of pleasure” (ipsa oﬃcina voluptatis) in Epistle 92.26. 53. Asmis (1989: 235) rightly places the beginning of this anti-Epicurean harangue slightly earlier (at 6.1), where an Epicurean is the implied subject of the sentence “‘But even the mind,’ he says, ‘has its own pleasures.’” 134       ics who take the Epicureans as dissolute voluptuaries (a text I have quoted many times in this book). Epicurus counters, as we have seen, that “the virtues [aretai] are by nature part of living pleasurably, and living pleasurably is inseparable from them” (Ep. Men. 132). is quotation from Epicurus follows directly the statement quoted more fully in the introduction to this book and in chapter 2:“it is neither nonstop drinking and revelry nor physical enjoyment of boys and women nor fish or other elements of a lavish banquet table that produce a pleasant life” (Ep. Men. 131). But although Seneca is using virtus as a translation of the philosophical term arete (a term not so conspicuously wrapped up with virility), his discussion of virtus quickly devolves into a tirade about the gendering of the Epicurean.54 A few lines aer his complaint that Epi- cureans claim that a person cannot “live honorably without living pleasurably,” Seneca repeats his question in slightly diﬀerent terms: “Why do you conjoin two things that are so divergent, so contradictory?” is second formulation of the question put to the Epicureans introduces the passage with which we started this section: “Virtus is something exalted, something elevated and regal, unconquered, unfaltering; voluptas is lowly, servile, feeble.” It is no coincidence that these passages are consecutive. In On the Happy Life, Seneca alludes again and again to the true Epicurean belief that moral goodness and pleasure go hand in hand. At places, he acknowledges that a good Epicurean might avoid the dissolute life and thus achieve true happiness, but he warns that the hazards are legion. e admonitions against the dangers of taking pleasure as a guide are admonitions against the loss of manhood.

Quisquis ad virtutem accessit, dedit generosae indolis specimen: qui voluptatem sequitur uidetur eneruis, fractus, degenerans uiro, perventurus in turpia nisi aliquis distinxerit illi voluptates, ut sciat quae ex eis intra naturale desiderium re- sistant, quae praeceps ferantur infinitaeque sint et quo magis inplentur eo magis inexplebiles. Agedum, virtus antecedat, tutum erit omne vestigium. (De vita beata 13.4–5)

[He who reaches for virtus provides a model of the noble character; but he who pursues voluptas is shown to be weakly, eﬀeminate, falling short of being a man,

54. McDonnell (2006: 9) writes, “But analyzed as a purely ethical concept, virtus is inevitably a poor cousin to the more semantically wide-ranging and philosophically sophisticated Greek concept of arete.”    135

and headed for depravity unless someone distinguishes for him the diﬀerences between pleasures, so that he knows which are within the boundary of natural desire, and which whisk one away and are infinite and become more insatiable the more they are satisfied. Come then, let virtus direct us, and every footstep will be safe.]

Later in On the Happy Life, Seneca oﬀers variations on the virtus/voluptas theme as it relates to Epicurus’ discussion of virtues (aretai) in the Letter to Me- noeceus and its codification as the fih saying in the Principal Doctrines. At one point, the hypothetical Epicurean asks, “What prevents virtus and voluptas from being joined into one [in unum virtutem voluptatemque confundi] and constituting the highest good so that the honorable [honestum] and the pleasant [iucundum] may be one and the same?” (15.1). Seneca’s answer is a less dra- matic reiteration of his description of the radical diﬀerences between virtus and voluptas (De vita beata 7.3). In Cicero’s On Ends, the Epicurean conjoining pleasure with moral goodness is subjected to ridicule at many turns. At one point, the Epicurean Torquatus incorporates a closer translation of Epicurus’ words to Menoeceus when he protests, “Epicurus, the man whom you [plural] say is too devoted to pleasures, broadcasts that no one can live pleasantly without living wisely, honorably, and justly; nor wisely, honorably, and justly without living pleasantly” (Clamat Epicurus, is quem vos nimis voluptatibus esse ded- itum dicitis, non posse iucunde vivi nisi sapieter, honeste, iusteque vivatur, nece sapienter, honeste, iuste nisi iucunde, 1.57). In his refutation, Cicero responds to Torquatus, “You say, ‘But Epicurus says’—for this is your brilliant strong suit [lumen]—‘that someone who does not live honorably cannot live pleasantly.’ As if I should care what he says or denies! What I ask is, what would be a consistent response from someone who places the highest good in voluptas?” (Fin. 2.70). In On Benefits, an essay addressed to Aebutius Liberalis, Seneca returns to the theme when he writes that a virtuous act (honestum) must have virtue itself as its goal. e words honestus and honos are oen allied with virtus, and the usual shi to the vocabulary of manliness and pleasure occurs in next sentence.55

55. On Roman temples dedicated jointly to Honos et Virtus, erected in connection with military victories, see Richardson 1992: 190. McDonnell (2006: 213) writes, “Conceptually, the relationship between virtus and honos is straightforward enough. In Roman culture, demon- strations of prowess in battle—virtus—were rewarded by election to public oﬃce and by the prestige the oﬃce conferred, both of which were denoted by honos.” 136      

In hac parte nobis pugna est cum Epicureis, delicata et umbratica turba in convivio suo philosophantium, apud quos virtus voluptatum ministra est, illis paret, illis deservit, illas supra se videt. (Ben. 4.1.3)

[Here we have a quarrel with the Epicureans, an eﬀeminate, shade-loving clan of philosophizing banqueters among whom virtus is the handmaid of pleasures that it obeys, that it waits upon, that it sees reigning over it.]

is passage echoes Cleanthes’ description of the painting of the Virtues waiting on Pleasure as presented in Cicero’s On Ends (Fin. 2.69, discussed earlier in this chapter); Seneca and Cicero are referring to the same Stoic texts. At this point, the hypothetical Epicurean (whom Seneca immediately rebuﬀs) again paraphrases Epicurus: “ere is no voluptas without virtus” (Ben. 4.2.1). With Seneca we also come full circle to the contrast of pain to pleasure with which this chapter started. In his short critique of the Garden in On Benefits, he brings dolor back into the virtus/voluptas antithesis. Having retorted to the hypothetical Epicurean that he will not quibble over the Epicurean’s claim that the pleasant life cannot exist without virtus, he asserts (here as elsewhere) that he objects not to the way the Epicureans place pleasure ahead of manly virtue (post voluptatem ponitur virtus) but to their habit of associating the two at all. For virtus, he writes, “is the enemy and despiser of pleasure, and it recoils as far as possible from it, being more acquainted with the masculine struggles of toil and pain than with your eﬀeminate so-called good” (contemptrix eius et hostis et longissime ab illa resiliens, labori ac dolori, virilibus incommodes, quam isti ef- feminato bono, Ben. 4.2.4). us he combines the virtus/voluptas cliché with the juxtaposition of dolor to voluptas.

“I received great pleasure from your letter”

e rhetoric of pleasure versus manly virtue exists in particular realms. For Ci- cero, the hostile juxtaposition belongs primarily to the anti-Epicurean tirades (or occasionally to his more sober critiques of Epicureanism) in his oratorical and philosophical writings. In Cicero’s letters, the words virtus and voluptas lose their charged meanings. Cicero, too, takes pleasure in receiving letters, and he recites the formulaic “I took great pleasure in your letter” without apology. “Manly virtue” and “pleasure” can even occur next to each other without    137 being situated on two sides of an ethical divide. In a letter to his Epicurean friend Titus Pomponius Atticus dated to December of 51 BCE, Cicero alludes to the binary he articulates elsewhere when he writes about the pleasure he takes in his own integrity as consul.56 With urbane allusiveness, he writes to his Epicurean friend that he refrains from claiming for himself the virtue of restraint, which would connote “a virtue opposed to pleasure” (quae virtus voluptati resistere videtur), for the pleasure is the greatest he has ever felt (Att. 5.20.6). Virtus is very rarely attributed to a woman in Cicero’s era. As a recent discussion puts it, “Virtus is the ideal of masculine behavior that all men ought to embody, that some women have the good fortune of attaining, and that men derided as eﬀeminate conspicuously fail to achieve.”57 But in writing to Atticus about his beloved daughter, Tullia, Cicero refers to her “virtue, humanity, and devotion” and laments that his present grief, his exile, prevents him from taking pleasure in her singular goodness (Att. 11.17.1). He praises the virtus of his wife, Terentia, and again of Tullia with similar wording in a letter to Terentia also written while Cicero was in exile, when his wife and daughter were facing disaster in Rome. ere, too, voluptas is mentioned in concert with virtus, this time in reference to Tullia’s bravery and the pleasure (now replaced by grieving) that she had taken in her father’s love (Ad fam. 14.1.1).58 e point of these unusual uses of virtus is to stress the exceptionality of Tullia’s strengths—rare among females, but occasionally shared also by her mother. e peaceful coexistence of virtus and voluptas in Cicero’s letters draws attention to the tendentiousness of the binary elsewhere. e use of both terms in the same sentence also demonstrates how their potentially vituperative force can be either unleashed or occluded. When writing in his letter to Atticus of the voluptas that should be aﬀorded by Tullia’s virtus, Cicero draws attention away from the sounds of the words by focusing on a string of virtues and by avoiding parallel structure: Ego autem ex ipsius virtute, humanitate, pietate, non modo eam voluptatem non cepi quam capere ex singulari filia debui . . . (“Far from en-

56. I follow Cicero in referring to Atticus as an Epicurean (e.g., Fin. 5.3; Att. 4.6.1; Legibus 1.21, 54). 57. Williams 1999: 127. 58. Cicero attributes “wondrous” virtus to Tullia (Att. 11.17.1) and writes of her great virtus and extraordinary humanity (Ad fam. 14.1.1). 138       joying the pleasure I ought to take in the virtus, humanity, and devotion of such a paragon of daughters. . .”) (Att. 11.17.1). Sardonic derision and contempt dis- appear along with the alliteration. When used against Epicurus, the virtus/voluptas figure is formulated so as to reveal apparently obvious and incontrovertible truths, but the power of the words evaporates when Epicure- anism is not at issue. chapter 5 The Material Epicurean

He had three brothers who met horrible ends, struck down by countless diseases. As for Epicurus himself, even when he was still young, he could not get oﬀ his bed easily. Nearly blind by day, he shrank from the light of the sun, and he hated that most brilliant and manifest of the gods. And what is more, he even turned his gaze away from fire- light, and blood dripped from his lower orifices, and so great was the wasting of his body, that he could not even bear the weight of his clothes.1 (Aelian, as quoted in the Suda)

What does an Epicurean look like? is question received great attention in antiquity. For Epicurean women, ancient commentary is nearly nonexistent. We may have a representation of the feet of an Epicurean woman—either Leontion or emista—and of the hem of her dress, but we do not have her face.2 Pliny’s references to Leontion’s portraits assure us only that her appearance interested the painters. If the painters who presented her as a female philosopher were indeed pornographoi (as a character in e Learned Banqueters suggests), perhaps we should assume that their Leontion was also erotically alluring. Otherwise, the sources are virtually silent about the appearance of the meditative Leontion or her attractive sisters. ere is no mystery in Plutarch’s mention of the perpetual youth and beauty of the women, who must be good-looking if they are

1. ἀδελφοὶ δὲ τρεῖς ἦσαν, [οἳ] μυρίοις ἀρρωστήμασι περιπλακέντες ἀπέθανον οἴκτιστα. ὅγε μὴν Έπίκουρος ἔτι νέος ὢν αὐτὸς οὐ ῥὰδίως ἀπὸ τῆς κλίνης οἷός τε ἦν κατιέναι, ἀμβλυώττων τε καὶ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου αἴγλην δειλὸς ὢν καὶ τῷ φαιδροτάτῳ τε καὶ ἐναργεστάτῳ τῶν θεῶν ἀπεχθανόμενος. καὶ μέντοι καὶ τὴν τοῦ πυρὸς αὐγὴν ἀπεστρέφετο αἷμά τε αὐτῷ διὰ τῶν πόρων ἀπεκρίνετο τῶν κάτω. τοσαύτη δὲ ἄρα ἡ σύντηξις ἡ τοῦ σώματος ἦν αὐτῷ ὡς ἀδυνατεῖν καὶ τὴν τῶν ἱματίων φέρειν ἐπιβολήν (Aelian, as quoted in the Suda, epsilon 2405, lines 1–8 Adler; fr. 39 Hercher). 2. On representations of Leontion, see chapter 3.

139 140       to be emblems of Epicurean erotic desire.3 Images of Epicurean men, however, are abundant, and the traditions about their appearance are varied and complex. is chapter examines the primary sources—both sculpted and written— on the appearance of male Epicureans. eir representations are productive of an understanding of the ways Epicureans were envisioned and gendered over the course of several centuries. e insistence on the corporality of the Epi- cureans is itself instructive: the image of the lover of pleasure required that there be flesh.

Epicurus’ Beard

e many references (friendly or otherwise) to Epicurean banquets and the equation of Epicureans to Phaeacians (already discussed in this book) suggest that the word Epicurean conjured up for many an image of men reclining with food and wine in hand, surrounded by attendants and dim lamplight, and talking (about sex or poetry, depending on the sympathy of the source). But statues of Epicurus project a diﬀerent image. To begin with the most obvious type of representation, I turn first to the Roman copies of the Epicureans’ own statues of Epicurus and his original disciples. Portrait sculptures of Greek philosophers were common features of Roman villas and their gardens, where they were sometimes exhibited along with busts of Homer, Euripides, and other classical authors.4 Some display such recognizable patterns that they are readily identifi- able even without an accompanying inscription. e Stoic Chrysippus must look the part by having an unkempt beard, a bald head, and a creased brow, while Epicurus requires a long, thin face, an overhanging brow, and a thick but not unruly beard. Appearances match doctrines: Chrysippus exhibits an “os- tentatious disregard for outward appearance,”5 while Epicurus—as interpreted by many modern scholars—projects tranquillity.6 But what is unusual about

3. On the portraits of Leontion (and the hypothesis that there was once a full-size seated portrait of her), see chapter 3. In the Non posse (1097d), Plutarch calls Leontion, Boidion, Hedeia, and Nikidion “young and beautiful.” 4. e literary sources include Juvenal’s Satires (2.4–7) and Pliny’s Naturalis historia (35.4–7). Archaeological sources are cataloged by Neudecker (1988), who records eighteen villas that included philosophers’ portraits. As Dillon (2006: 135 n. 38) points out, a catalog of the abundant surviving statues that have no recorded provenance would expand Neudecker’s list considerably. 5. Dillon 2006: 114. 6. In Frischer’s reconstruction of the seated portraits of Epicurus, the philosopher takes the pose of an energetic teacher.    141 portraits of Epicureans is their collective uniformity. e attention drawn to Socrates’ Silenus-like appearance counterpoints the case of Epicurus: Plato does not share it. e Stoics—Zeno with his comb-over, Cleanthes with his “full civic costume,”7 and Chrysippus with his projecting head—are recognizable as distinct individuals.8 In contrast, the appearances of Epicurus, Metrodorus, Hermarchus, and (possibly) Colotes echo each other. Surviving examples include five life-sized statues and six rings or gems representing Epi- curus and dozens of securely identified busts of Epicurus and his fellow philosophers Hermarchus and Metrodorus. All of the statues are Roman copies of single Greek originals that seem to have been very roughly contemporary with Epicurus. Most authorities add to this list several life-size (or larger) statue portraits and some statuettes that apparently represent each of the philosophers.9 On both gems and sculptures, Epicurus is portrayed as a mature man with a thin, narrow face, projecting or bulging brow, sunken cheeks, a full beard, and copious, well-tended hair.10 Unless we are misinter- preting the gesture, the contraction of the overhanging brow lends the face an unusual severity.

7. Dillon 2006: 116. 8. Zanker 1995: 34–39, 97–102; Dillon 2006: 113–16. 9. For a survey of busts and full-size statues, see Richter 1984, “Epicurus,” “Hermarchus,” “Metrodorus.” Von den Hoﬀ (1994) catalogs the sculptures, adding some not included by Richter, who counts “about 30” busts and five seated statues of Epicurus (117–18), seventeen busts and three possible statues of Metrodorus (164), and “about a dozen” busts and two possible seated figures of Hermarchus (131). Frischer (1982: 123) accepts Schefold’s (1943: 116) tentative identification of another group of Epicurus-like busts with Colotes. e gems are numbers 438–41 in Richter 1971, a list that may be supplemented by other possible examples listed by Frischer (1982: 87 n. 1). e seated portraits have no identifying inscriptions, but attribution seems secure because the surviving heads have features in common with the inscribed busts. It has recently been discovered that the extensive mosaic floor in the House of the Greek Authors in Autun (ancient Augustodunum) includes portraits of Epicurus and Metrodorus (Blanchard-Lemée and Blanchard 1993; Frischer 2006: para- graphs 10–20). 10. Richter (1984: 118–19) notes significant traits that indicate that the sculptures do not simply conform to a pattern but are based on a single Greek original: “the long, narrow shape of the head; the deeply lined, high, but narrow forehead; the deep-set, rather small eyes with drooping upper lids, pockets beneath the lower lids, crow’s feet at the outer corners, and overhanging brows that curve down to the bridge of the nose; the prominent nose with a marked protuberance below the bridge; the finely curving, full-lipped mouth, with the upper lip all but hidden by a thick, but rather small moustache (only a triangle of the upper lip is visible); the longish curling beard, divided into two parts along the middle; and the plentiful hair with locks arranged according to a set pattern.” 142      

All of the full-size sculptures portray Epicurus seated. Richter inventoried the details succinctly as follows:

right leg advanced; le set back; right forearm raised, with hand holding a scroll; le arm inside mantle with only part of the forearm protruding and resting on lap; the mantle enveloping the whole figure, except the right arm and the right side of the chest, passing from the le shoulder along the right, with ends hanging down on the le side. e seat is a throne of Hellenistic type, with rounded back and terminating in front in an animal’s head and leg.11

is description warrants extended quotation because salient details of this stance are replicated with scrupulous care in portraits now identified as Metrodorus and Hermarchus (and—where various elements have survived—in the composite statue that now represents Saint Hippolytus). As discussed in chapter 3, it may be tempting to accept Guarducci’s identification of the lower portions of Hippolytus’ portrait as the remains of a life-size portrait of a female Epicurean philosopher. is could place Leontion or emista securely on Epi- curus’ throne, but that may require one or more leaps of faith, as described in chapter 3. Although the faces of Epicurus’ followers (particularly that of Metro - dorus) are generally fuller and their brows less contracted, the portrait busts of the three male philosophers have sometimes been confused. Of Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Hermarchus, Zanker writes, “all three Epicureans sit calmly and quietly,” maintaining “a kind of contrapposto between the rear leg actively thrust back and the forward leg relaxed, as well as a comparable chiastic positioning of the arms.”12 In addition to the very precise pose, all of the men display the peculiarly “Epicurean” beards, hair, narrow faces, and furrowed brows (with minor variations). Frischer, accepting a tentative identification of some Epicurus-like busts with Colotes, notes that it is unlikely that four men, “unrelated and of different backgrounds, should bear such an uncanny resemblance to each other.”13 Rather, the iconographic similarities must be due to an effort to represent these three particular students (or four if we include Colotes, five if we include Leontion or Themista) as Epicurus’ legitimate con-

11. Richter 1984: 200. 12. Zanker 1995: 114. 13. Frischer 2006: paragraph 232.    143 tinuators.14 Spiritual attributes coincided with the physical: “By looking like Epicurus, they give evidence of being like him.”15 at the adherents of Epicurus attached an unusual importance to his representation is apparent from several references dating to Rome’s late republic and early empire. All of these refer to images of Epicurus only; there are no ancient references to statues of other Epicureans. In On Moral Ends, for example, Cicero presents a stroll with friends in Athens. For each member of his party, the monuments and locations they pass bring to mind the memory of a particular ancient philosopher or other great luminary of the distant Greek past. When they pass by the Garden, Cicero’s Epicurean friend Atticus remarks, “Still, I could not forget Epicurus if I wanted to; my confreres have his image not only in paintings, but even on their drinking cups and rings” (nec tamen Epicuri licet oblivisci, si cupiam, cuius imaginem non modo in tabulis nostri familiares, sed etiam in poculis et in anulis habent, Fin. 5.3).16 In On the Nature of the Gods, in the midst of ridicule of the Epicurean belief in divine anthropo- morphism, Cotta switches to worship of Epicurus: “I personally know Epicure- ans who venerate every little image” (sigilla, Cicero, Nat. D. 1.85). Similarly, Pliny writes that Epicureans display Epicurus’ portrait in their bedrooms and carry them around with them (Epicuri voltus per cubicula gestant ac circumfer- unt secum, HN 35.56). Diogenes Laertius mentions bronze statues of Epicurus that were erected in Epicurus’ hometown, Samos (10.9).17 In Cyprus, a late third-century BCE statue base inscribed “Epicurus” adds evidence to the thesis that statues of Epicurus were widespread only a generation (or two) aer his death.18 In a disputed passage in Diogenes Laertius’ Life of Epicurus, the philosopher is reported to have seen the erection of statues as behavior appropriate to a sage: “And [the wise] will put up statues.” If the next sentence continues that thought, Epicurus then adds, with modesty, “Whether he has one himself, he will be indiﬀerent” (Εἰκόνας τε ἀναθήσειν. <εὖ> εἰ ἔχοι, ἀδιαφόρως ἂν σχοίη, Diog. Laert. 120).19

14. Frischer 2006: paragraph 234. 15. Frischer 2006: paragraph 235. 16. An exact translation of nostri familiares is difficult. Woolf (2001: 118) offers the translation “[t]he members of our Epicurean family.” e paintings (tabellae) may have been small tablets that Epicureans carried with them, as Miriam Griffin suggests (2001: 9), or they may have been conventional portraits to be hung on walls. 17. Frischer takes this as a reference to the statues in Athens. 18. Mitford 1961: 7. 19. is is the interpretation of Bailey (1926: 419). 144      

In modern scholarship, the images of Epicurus have inspired analyses in which description and conclusion intermingle, oen according to the be- holder’s overall posture toward Epicureanism. Frischer’s thesis that the original sculpture of Epicurus was erected during the philosopher’s lifetime as “a ‘sculpted word’ conveying crucial messages about Epicurus’ character and mis- sion to mankind” is the most freighted with interpretation.20 But Richter, for example, also takes the images as a reflection of the character of Epicurus and, by extension, of Epicureanism. She detected in them “the imposing appearance, the kindly disposition that enlisted the reverence and love of his followers, the courage in combating adverse fortunes.” Richter adds that the statue’s “idealis- tic, serious expression” presents abundant proof that “material pleasure” was not the point of Epicureanism. e seated posture and simple clothing also reveal “[t]he noble simplicity of his character.” In her view, a less admirable trait is present as well, for the statue also displays “the self-satisfied temperament that did not try to reach out to fresh knowledge, but was content with the old atomic theories of Demokritos.”21 For Zanker, however, the artist’s rendition of Epicurus’ face was meant to express the “tremendous intellectual capacity” of a “great pioneering thinker.”22 Dillon, too, interprets the contraction of the brow muscles as a sign of “concentration and intellectual vigor.”23 For Frischer, Epicurus is “deep in thought and about to speak.”24 Zanker stresses the “curious contrast between the restless and powerfully muscled philosopher’s brow and the otherwise placid expression of the face”; the eyebrows, “raised but hardly in motion,” are “a token of superior- ity, reflecting his absolute authority.”25 Zanker agrees that the images resemble each other closely, but he detects a strict hierarchy—from Epicurus’ throne, to Metrodorus’ chair, to Hermarchus’ stone block.26 He sees the ladder of authority in the faces as well: Epicurus’ face is meant to show great intellect;

20. Frischer 1982: xvi. e scholarly consensus is that the sculptures commemorated the philosophers aer their deaths. Von den Hoﬀ (1994) has argued that stylistic analysis indicates dates aer the death of Epicurus, but dating is tricky, especially because we are dealing with Roman copies of Greek originals. 21. Richter 1984, 200. 22. Zanker 1995: 119, 122. 23. Dillon 2006: 114. 24. Frischer 2006: paragraph 51. 25. Zanker 1995: 119. 26. On Metrodorus’ klismos, see R. von den Hoﬀ 1994: 80. As Frischer notes (2006: paragraph 18), the klismos appears also in the newly restored Autun mosaic.    145

Metrodorus is serene, but his brow gives no hint of intellectual eﬀort; and Her- marchus has the air of a loyal disciple.27 Zanker finds great meaning in Epicu- rus’ throne, which he reads as a clear indication that “the Epicureans were not concerned with a search for truth through persuasive argumentation and pas- sionate discussion . . . but rather with devotion to and perpetuation of a unique spiritual guide and teacher.”28 e positions of the philosophers’ arms may also have diﬀered in a significant way. In a discussion of his recent reconstruction, Frischer reiterates his earlier proposal that Epicurus’ right arm was “stretched upward or forward in a gesture of greeting or teaching.”29 Epicurus’ successor, Hermarchus, was also depicted that way. In contrast, Metrodorus’ arm may have been angled toward his head in a thinking pose.30 is pose of contemplation is clearly visible in a mosaic in the House of the Greek Authors at Autun in France that may reasonably be dated to the late second century. As Frischer notes, it is reasonable to suppose that because Metrodorus died before his own teacher, Epicurus, the original Hellenistic sculptor did not depict Metrodorus as a teacher (with out- stretched arm). us, in Frischer’s view, Metrodorus would be “depicted as a student listening to his master.”31 Frischer notes in addition, however, that the Autun Metrodorus may have been bald (though the restoration of his head is uncertain) and that the position of his arm may have departed from earlier sculptures as much as his hair did.32 What can the portrait busts tell us about the Epicureans’ posture toward the world outside the Garden? Interpretations of the facial expressions are necessarily subjective. Where one viewer senses a severe scowl in the face of Epicu- rus, another may see placidity. Where one sees kindness toward a follower, another may sense patriarchal control. Moving beyond the contours of the face and placing the sculptures in the broader framework of the conventions of Athenian portraiture may yield more objective results. Frischer has described the Garden as an alternative community. More than a subculture, the Garden was, in his reading, “a consciously constructed community that embodied a genuinely positive and legitimate alternative to the dominant culture of

27. Zanker 1995: 118–19. 28. Zanker 1995: 118. 29. Frischer 2006: paragraph 5. 30. Frischer 2006: paragraph 19. 31. Frischer 2006: paragraph 30. 32. Frischer 2006: paragraph 14. 146      

Greece.”33 But whether the portrait sculptures were erected during the life of Epicurus or aer his death, it is difficult to find in them any allusion to Epi- curean otherness. ey share a particular, recognizable pose; the overall composition may have been designed as a physical manifestation of Epicurean ataraxia; and their resemblance to each other is remarkable. But these attributes do not imply a self-presentation that expresses a radical rejection of Athe- nian culture. Moreover—despite their distinctiveness—the statues of Epicurus and his disciples have significant features in common with images of Chrysip- pus, who shares with Epicurus the contracted brow.34 Both Stoic and Epicurean philosophers are represented with “seated pose, simple dress, aging body, aging physiognomy, expression of mental concentration, and a beard.”35 e beard—in an era when shaving had become the norm—denotes otherness, but philosophers in general expressed their difference through declining the razor. Zanker connects the practice with a philosophical (but not specifically Epicurean) outlook that asserted that “[i]t is a law of nature that hair grows on a man’s chin, and to shave it off is a denial of the natural order of things.”36 A clean-shaven face could also connote effeminacy, as the Stoic Chrysippus claims (according to Athenaeus), invoking Diogenes the Cynic.

‘Διογένης δὲ ἰδών τινα οὕτως ἔχοντα τὸ γένειον ἔφησεν ‘μή τι ἔχεις ἐγκαλεῖν τῇ φύσει, ὅτι ἄνδρα σὲ ἐποίησε καὶ οὐ γυναῖκα;’ ἕτερον δέ τινα ἐπὶ ἵππου ἰδὼν παραπλησίως ἔχοντα καὶ μεμυρισμένον καὶ τούτοις ἀκολούθως ἠμφιεσμένον, πρότερον μὲν ἔφησε ζητεῖν τί ἐστιν ὁ ἱππόπορνος, νῦν δ’ εὑρηκέναι. (Ath. 13.565)

[Diogenes, seeing someone with his chin like that, said, “Surely you cannot be prosecuting nature because she made you a man and not a woman?” And seeing someone similar, all perfumed and dressed to match, he said that he used to wonder what a “horsey prostitute” was, and now he had found out.]37

33. Frischer 2006: paragraph 137. 34. Dillon 2006: 115. A good example is the bust of Chrysippus at the Museo Nazionale in Naples (Zanker 1995: 100, figure 55). 35. Dillon 2006: 115. 36. Zanker 1995: 108. 37. “Horsiness” designates hugeness, so ἱππόπορνος (“horsey prostitute”) might properly mean “great big prostitute.”    147

us the Epicurean beard (though carefully combed, in contrast to the Stoics’ scraggly disarray) evokes the image of the manly philosopher but does not de- tach the Epicurean from Athenian culture or society in an extreme or specifically Epicurean way. Moreover, some aspects of the Epicurean portraits demonstrate a certain conservativeness in that the style of presentation conforms with older paradigms, particularly the formulaic depictions of Athenian citizens on late fih- and fourth-century Attic funereal reliefs (or gravestones). As Sheila Dillon writes, the classical reliefs put on view “a basic set of figure types” who display “exemplary appearance and behavior considered appropriate to each: the modest wife, the athletic young man, the heroic soldier, the mature male citizen, the revered and wise old father.”38 Zanker finds the portrayal of “the intellectual as good citizen” particularly striking.39 He notes that the reliefs, some of which approach the scale of the later three-dimensional seated philosophers, depict the good citizen as bearded and wearing the same simple himation, with no underlying tunic.40 e Epicureans, moreover, echo the classical sculptures and vase paintings that display one of the arms bound up in the cloth of the himation.41 For Zanker, the close wrapping of the arm connotes an extreme conservatism.

is unmistakable gesture of the Epicureans can be understood only as an explicit and self-conscious indication of a desire to hold to the old traditions, a token of virtue and modesty, at a time when these very values were being called into question by other members of Athenian society. Epicurus and his friends quite osten- tatiously attach great importance to the proper behavior. Anyone who withdrew from the city, like “those from the Garden,” was well advised to insure that in spite of this he appeared to be an irreproachable citizen . . . e maintenance of the proper citizen etiquette was taken for granted in the Kepos.42

38. Dillon 2006: 66. 39. “e Intellectual as Good Citizen” is the title of the second chapter of Zanker 1995. 40. Dillon (2006: 115) stresses the similarities between citizens’ and philosophers’ heads, rather than the clothing. Zanker stresses similarities in the clothing and in the elegance of the hair and beard. 41. Zanker (1995: 114) calls attention to the le arms of the Epicureans and the citizens in the relief sculptures. Compare also the closely wrapped right arms of the statues of Sophocles and Aeschines (Zanker’s figs. 25 and 26). 42. Zanker 1995: 115–16. 148      

Also essential to a contextualized reading of the sculptures is an awareness of the ways the portraits resonate with the images of not only good citizens in general but also fathers in the funereal reliefs.43 As several scholars have demonstrated, some aspects of the representations of Epicurus strongly recall the iconography of the ideal father and husband.44 Citing as an example a carved fourth-century grave monument in the form of a lekythos, Frischer notes that the bearded and himation-wearing father is seated in a position that seems to prefigure facets of the Epicurean sculptures described in chapter 2 of this book: “[e] right leg juts forward, and his le leg is angled backward at the knee. e weight of the le leg falls on the toes of his foot, while the ankle is raised.”45 (e similar position of the feet in the reliefs does not disrupt the standard identification of the pose in statuary as peculiarly Epicurean, because the three-dimensional statues belong to a diﬀerent genre.) Although some scholars connect a verse in Lucretius’ De rerum natura more specifically with Roman culture, Frischer associates the fatherly appearance of Epicurus with the phrase Tu pater es, rerum inventor, tu patria nobis / suppeditas praecepta (“You are our father, the discoverer of things, you provide for us a father’s precepts,” DRN 3.9–10).46 He cites in addition Philodemus’ allusion to disagreements with the founding Epicureans as “almost parricide” (Philodemus, Rhetorica A, col. VII.18–28). Where does this leave us? e departures from other representations of Athenian males found in the Epicurean portraits are distinguishing characteristics but do not suggest a questioning of conventional behavior or the criteria for manliness. In fact, the resemblance to father figures in the funereal reliefs implies a self-fashioning that drew on an earlier generation’s outward projec- tion of the values of male citizenship. is Epicurean persona as presented in stone signifies an allegiance to a traditional canon of male attributes that would contradict the later Roman paradigm in which the Epicureans reject virtus in favor of voluptas. While we cannot know to what extent actual Epicureans

43. Frischer (2006: paragraph 34) calls the portrait of Epicurus “an integration of six simple types: philosopher, father, culture-hero, savior, megalopsychos, and god.” 44. Schmaltz 1985: 45 and 50; Stewart 1990: 199; von den Hoff 1994: 66; Dillon 2006: 66; Frischer 2006: paragraph 34. 45. Frischer 2006: paragraph 348. is monument is shown in Frischer’s figure 27. 46. Frischer 2006: paragraph 349. Connecting it with Roman references to the gods (e.g., Neptunus pater) and with the Roman patria potestas, Bailey (1947: 988) describes the use of pater here as “an essentially Roman idea.”    149 dressed according to the iconography, the later Epicurean habit of keeping his image close at hand leads me to believe that they imagined Epicurus and his early followers as looking precisely like the portraits. As for the marked dissimilarities between Epicurean portraits and those of Stoics and other philosophers, the difference that most stands out resides not in any individual sculpture but in the fact that the Epicurean portraits present a generally uniform appearance when viewed in concert. A well-disposed inter- preter would take the similarities as a signifier of the coherence of first-generation Epicurean doctrine or the cohesiveness of the community, but an antagonistic observer might take the resemblance as a symptom of Epicurean fundamentalism. Epicureans were oen ridiculed for adhering too closely to Epicurus’ own words. Plutarch, for example, claims that Colotes followed Epi- curus so slavishly that he could not comprehend his teaching in new contexts: ὁ δὲ Κωλώτης ἔοικε τὸ αὐτὸ πάσχειν τοῖς νεωστὶ γράμματα μανθάνουσι τῶν παίδων, οἳ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας ἐν τοῖς πυξίοις ἐθιζόμενοι λέγειν, ὅταν ἔξω γεγραμμένους ἐν ἑτέροις ἴδωσιν, ἀμφιγνοοῦσι καὶ ταράττονται (“Colotes seems to have suffered the same thing that children suffer when they first learn their letters: accustomed to reciting the characters on their tablets, they become perplexed and confused when they see them elsewhere,” Adv. Col. 1120f–1121a). In the case of Cicero’s portrayal of Piso (discussed later in this chapter), strict adherence to particular words of Epicurus is said to cause that student to “want to seal the tablets,” shutting out a teacher’s explanation of the subtleties (tabellas obsignare velle, Pis. 69). e stereotype of the Epicurean who is inca- pable of independent thought also appears in Seneca and Cicero. In On Moral Ends, for example, Metrodorus is “almost another Epicurus” (paene alter Epi- curus, Fin. 2.28.92). In a letter to Lucilius, Seneca contrasts the intellectual autonomy of the Stoics—“we are not controlled by a despot” (non sumus sub rege)—to the servility of the Epicureans. eir strict adherence to Epicurus’ teachings leads them—ironically—to attribute the words of his immediate followers to the master himself: Apud istos quidquid Hermarchus dixit, quidquid Metrodorus, ad unum refertur; omnia quae quisquam in illo contubernio locutus est unius ductu et auspiciis dicta sunt (“Among those people, whatever Her- marchus said, whatever Metrodorus said, is ascribed to one person; everything anyone in that crew utters is spoken under the authority and control of one alone,” Epistles 33). ere is, however, one characteristic of the portraits of Epicurus that is not 150       reiterated by the statues of Metrodorus or Hermarchus. Metrodorus’ body is rendered as robust and ample, and Hermarchus’ is unremarkable.47 For Zanker, the healthiness depicted in Metrodorus’ portrait makes him the “embodiment of a life of pleasure.”48 In contrast, Epicurus is unfit, and the exposed parts of the torso are “flabby and unarticulated in a manner unknown in any other statue type.”49 Historical accuracy may come into play here, as well as in two items recorded by Diogenes Laertius in the Life of Epicurus. e first is a reference to a letter: τελευτῆσαι δ’ αὐτὸν λίθῳ τῶν οὔρων ἐπισχεθέντων, ὥς φησι καὶ Έρμαρχος ἐν ἐπιστολαῖς, ἡμέρας νοσήσαντα τετταρεσκαίδεκα (“He died from a stone of the bladder, as Hermarchus says in his letters, aer being ill for four- teen days,” Diog. Laert. 10.15). e other is a short passage that includes a quotation from a letter by Epicurus:

Ήδη δὲ τελευτῶν γράφει πρὸς Ίδομενέα τήνδε ἐπιστολήν “Τὴν μακαρίαν ἄγοντες καὶ ἅμα τελευταίαν ἡμέραν τοῦ βίου ἐγράφομεν ὑμῖν ταυτί. στραγγο- υρικά τε παρηκολούθει καὶ δυσεντερικὰ πάθη ὑπερβολὴν οὐκ ἀπολείποντα τοῦ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς μεγέθους. ἀντιπαρετάττετο δὲ πᾶσι τούτοις τὸ κατὰ ψυχὴν χαῖρον ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν γεγονότων ἡμῖν διαλογισμῶν μνήμῃ. σὺ δ’ ἀξίως τῆς ἐκ μειρακίου παραστάσεως πρὸς ἐμὲ καὶ φιλοσοφίαν ἐπιμελοῦ τῶν παίδων Μητροδώρου.” (Diog. Laert. 10.22)

[Near his end, he writes the following letter to Idomeneus: “On this blissful and last day of my life, I have written this to you. Agonies associated with strangury and dysentery dog me to the greatest possible extent. But counterbalancing all of that is the joy in my spirit at the memory of the conversations we had. Take good care of the children of Metrodorus, as befits your devotion to me and to philosophy, which you have displayed since boyhood.”]

Epicurus’ illness mattered to his followers because his forbearance and professed happiness in adversity were instructive: bodily pain was less burdensome than pain of the spirit, and a sage can find joy regardless. Also according to Diog enes Laertius, Epicurus said that even torture cannot prevent the wise

47. For a photograph and description, see Zanker 1995: 123–24 and figure 63 (p. 116). 48. Zanker 1995: 123. 49. Zanker 1995: 122.    151 from being happy and that blindness was not cause for suicide.50 Although ha- giography may have been predominant, Metrodorus probably focused on the philosophical (rather than merely biographical) issues in his work On the Ill- ness of Epicurus (listed among Metrodorus’ publications in Diog. Laert. 10.24).

Epicurean Contagion

Outsiders read Epicurus’ illness differently. For some, the illness of Epicurus represented moral failure or perhaps simple ineptitude. Timocrates’ exposé De- lightful People seems to have presented Epicurus’ feebleness as ironically unpleasant: Epicurus’ pursuit of pleasure led to his vomiting twice a day from self- indulgence (ἀπὸ τρυφῆς, Diog. Laert.10.6). e thrust of Timocrates’ piece was the revelation of carefully guarded secrets, so the implication of his mention of the pitiful state of Epicurus’ body is that our philosopher of pleasure has not achieved the pleasant life he claims to offer. Implying that Epicurus did not know how to govern himself, Timocrates adds to his assertion that Epicurus does not know much philosophy the charge that he is even more ignorant of practical life (πολλὰ κατὰ τὸν λόγον ἠγνοηκέναι, καὶ πολὺ μᾶλλον κατὰ τὸν βίον, Diog. Laert. 10.7). In fact, Timocrates says, Epicurus is so weak that he has spent many years on a litter, unable to rise (10.7). A reference in a letter from Cicero to his Epicurean friend Marcus Fadius Gallus reveals that the Stoics included Epicurus’ ill health in their arsenal of anti-Epicurean discourse. For these Stoics, sexual impropriety (at best) was the cause. Cicero, who has suffered from severe gastric distress for ten days, comments on his ailment thus:

ego autem cum omnis morbos reformido tum in quo Epicurum tuum Stoici male accipiunt, quia dicat ‘στραγγουρικὰ καὶ δυσεντερικὰ πάθη’ sibi molesta esse; quorum alterum morbum edacitatis esse putant, alterum etiam turpioris intemperantiae. (Ad fam. 7.26.1)

50. Diog. Laert. 10.118. On torture: κἂν στρεβλωθῇ δ’ ὁ σοφός, εἶναι αὐτὸν εὐδαίμονα. μό- νον τε χάριν ἕξειν τὸν σοφόν, καὶ ἐπὶ φίλοις καὶ παροῦσι καὶἀποῦσιν ὁμοίως διατε<λεῖν> εὐλογοῦντα. ὅτε μέντοι στρεβλοῦται, ἔνθα καὶ μύζει καὶ οἰμώζει. On blindness: καὶ πηρωθέντα τὰς ὄψεις μεθέξειν αὐτὸν τοῦ βίου, ὡς ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ φησι. 152      

[ough I dread all diseases, I especially dread that for which the Stoics attack your friend Epicurus, since he said that he suﬀered from “agonies associated with strangury and dysentery”—the latter of which disease they attribute to gluttony, the former to a still more indecent lack of self-control.]

When Cicero switches to Greek in this passage, he is quoting the letter to Idomeneus preserved in fragmentary form by Diogenes Laertius (10.22, previously quoted). Cicero’s circumlocution “still more indecent lack of self-control” (etium turpioris intemperantiae) would leave us wondering exactly what these anonymous Stoics meant to imply if the texts of Hippocrates and Galen had not survived. While Diogenes Laertius identifies renal calculus as the source of Epi- curus’ strangury (painful and diﬃcult urination), Hippocrates apparently associated strangury with sexually transmitted diseases. Aer Cicero’s era, the second-century CE medical writer Galen associates strangury with gonorrhea (a term he himself coined), but—as his coinage implies—he identifies it as an in- voluntary flow of semen.51 us, according to a Stoic interpretation, Epicurus’ illness was a grotesque and shameful result of Epicurean sexual debauchery. e charge worsens if an interpretation similar to that of the medical writer Aretaeus was already current in Cicero’s era. According to Aretaeus’ On the Causes and Signs of Chronic Diseases (late second century CE), gonorrhea leads to feminization. e “womanish” symptoms he lists include characteristics he assigns also to eunuchs: a high voice, beardlessness, and physical weakness (4.5). Tangled up with this understanding of gonorrhea is an association made between sexual pleasure and a radical bodily weakening and enervation. In the second century CE, Galen reported that hedone can be so deleterious that excessive intercourse has led to death (De semine 1.16.32).52 Around a century aer Cicero’s bout of dysentery, Plutarch implies that Epicurus’ illness disproves the validity of Epicurean optimism about the power

51. Galenus Med., De usu partium 4.187.18. Graver (1998: 267 n. 58) suggests another interpretation: “another worse form of intemperance (i.e. sexual passivity).” 52. ὥστε οὐδὲν θαυμαστὸν, ἀσθενεστέρους ἀποτελεῖσθαι τοὺς λαγνεύοντας ἀμετρότερον, ἀφαιρουμένου τοῦ σώματος ἅπαντος ἑκατέρου τῶν ὑγρῶν τὸ εἰλικρινέστατον, προσερχομένης δὲ καὶ τῆς ἡδονῆς, ἥτις αὐτὴ καθ’ ἑαυτήν ἐστιν ἱκανὴ διαλύειν τὸν ζωτικὸν τόνον ὥστ’ ἤδη τινὲς ὑπερησθέντες ἀπέθανον (“So it is not at all surprising that those who are less moderate sexually turn out to be weaker, since the whole body loses the purest part of both substances, and since there is an accession of pleasure, which is by itself enough to dis- solve the vital tone, so that before now some persons have actually died from excess of pleasure”). e text and translation are from De Lacy 1992: 140–41.    153 of the intellect. A rudimentary Epicurean lesson taught that pleasure is attainable and that pain is bearable (as stated in the tetrapharmakos), but this is ludicrous to Plutarch, who writes that the body contains “sources of evil that no reasoning can fend off” (ἀρχὰς κακῶν, ἃς οὐκ ἀποτρέπει λογισμός, Non posse 1089e). If reasoning could divert those evils, thinking men would not suffer from renal calculus, dysentery, consumption, or dropsy, “some of which burdened Epicurus himself, some of which burdened Polyaenus, while others killed Neocles and Agathoboulos.”53 (Polyaenus was a mathematician who be- friended Epicurus during the philosopher’s early years in Lampsacus, and Neo- cles was Epicurus’ brother. “Agathoboulos” may be Plutarch’s slip for another brother named Aristoboulos.) Plutarch adds that he does not mean to reproach the Epicureans for their poor health, since other philosophers (Heraclitus and Phercydes) also had ailments, but this rhetorical concession scarcely detracts from his listing of “Epicurean” illnesses. us, with Plutarch, Epicurus’ poor health has spread to his followers.54 As we have seen, Diogenes Laertius and Timocrates attribute illness and infirmity to Epicurus, and the statues portray him with a thin, unfit body. But neither statues nor early texts attribute infirmity to other Epicureans. Metrodorus’ sculpted body looks particularly healthy and comfortable. Later, the Epicurean- friendly Diogenes Laertius records that Metrodorus eventually died of paraly- sis, but he oen identifies the cause of death of philosophers from other schools. By the late second century CE, however, Epicurus’ infections have spread beyond Plutarch’s testimony. In a passage recorded in excerpt in the Byzantine encyclopedia the Suda and quoted in part in the epitaph to this chapter, Aelian (165/170 CE–230/235 CE) adds a third brother of Epicurus to the list of sick Epicureans, whose symptoms have become horrific (fr. 39). e passage is offered simply as an entry under the headword “Epicurus”:

Έπίκουρος: οὗτος τὸ θεῖον παρ’ οὐδὲν ἐτίθετο: ἀδελφοὶ δὲ τρεῖς ἦσαν, [οἳ] μυρίοις ἀρρωστήμασι περιπλακέντες ἀπέθανον οἴκτιστα. ὅγε μὴν Έπίκουρος ἔτι νέος ὢν αὐτὸς οὐ ῥᾳδίως ἀπὸ τῆς κλίνης οἷός τε ἦν κατιέναι, ἀμβλυώττων

53. οὐδὲ γὰρ προσέπιπτεν <ἂν> ἀνδράσι νοῦν ἔχουσιστραγγουρικὰ πάθη καὶ δυσεντερικὰ καὶ φθίσεις καὶ ὕδρωπες, ὧν τοῖς μὲν αὐτὸς Έπίκουρος συνηνέχθη τοῖς δὲ Πολύαινος τὰ δὲ Νεοκλέα καὶ Άγαθόβουλον ἐξήγαγε (Non posse 1089e). 54. A related phenomenon, the banishment of Epicureans during times of plague (as though Epicureans had caused the illness), is attested much earlier. On the report that Philodemus was banished by the citizens of Himera aer plague and famine hit the city, see Sider 1997: 9. 154      

τε καὶ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου αἴγλην δειλὸς ὢν καὶ τῷ φαιδροτάτῳ τε καὶ ἐναργεστάτῳ τῶν θεῶν ἀπεχθανόμενος. καὶ μέντοι καὶ τὴν τοῦ πυρὸς αὐγὴν ἀπεστρέφετο αἷμά τε αὐτῷ διὰ τῶν πόρων ἀπεκρίνετο τῶν κάτω, τοσαῦτη δὲ ἄρα ἡ σύντηξις ἡ τού σώματος ἦν, ὡς ἀδυνατείν καὶ τὴν τῶν ἱματίων φέρειν ἐπιβολήν.55

[Epicurus: is man had no regard for the divine. He had three brothers who met horrible ends, struck down by countless diseases. As for Epicurus himself, even when he was still young, he could not get oﬀ his bed easily. Nearly blind by day, he shrank from the light of the sun, and he hated that most brilliant and manifest of the gods. And what is more, he even turned his gaze away from fire- light, and blood dripped from his lower orifices, and so great was the wasting of his body, that he could not even bear the weight of his clothes.]

e fundamental source of Aelian’s claim that Epicurus was unable to climb out of bed may have been Timocrates’ assertion that he could not rise from his litter (μὴ δύνασθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ φορείου διαναστῆναι). But apart from the litter (sometimes a conveyance for women), which may have had worse connotations than a simple bed, Aelian’s ghastly Epicureans far outdo Timocrates’ feeble Epicurus. Why did Epicurean illness (real or imagined) interest the enemies of Epicu- rus, and when did the lurid fascination exemplified by the Suda entry arise? Ti- mocrates’ relatively mild account may have begun the tradition, but his exposé (or the rumor that there was an exposé) may be a fiction that took shape barely in time to appear half a millennium aer Epicurus, in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives and Opinions.56 No hints of negative assessments of Epicurus’ infirmities appear in surviving sources that can be dated securely to Epicurus’ lifetime or soon thereaer. e admittedly scarce verse fragments of Timon of Phlius contain no suggestion, and the surviving scenes from the New Comedy that paint Epicureans as cooks and gourmands do not reveal rumors of illness. Nor do they attest clearly to a hatred of Epicurus: in verse, the alleged excesses and the peculiar language of the Garden are comical but not despicable. e extreme abhorrence epitomized by Aelian may have crystallized before Aelian’s lifetime in the late second or early third century CE, but Aelian’s words reveal a particular impetus behind his loathing: “is man had no regard for the divine”

55. Suda, epsilon 2405, lines 1–8 Adler; Aelian, fr. 39 Hercher. 56. See chapter 1 in the present book.    155

(οὗτος τὸ θεῖον παρ’ οὐδὲν ἐτίθετο). e next line in this passage from the Suda contains yet more commentary on Epicurean disease and again draws a connection with impiety: καὶ Μητρόδωρος δὲ καὶ Πολύαινος, ἄμφω τὼ ἑταίρω αὐτού, κάκιστα ἀνθρώπων ἀπέθανον: καὶ μέντοι τῆς ἀθείας ἠνέγκαντο μισθὸν οὐδαμὰ οὐδαμῆ μεμπτόν (“And Metrodorus and Polyaenus, both of them his companions, died the most horrible deaths, and indeed they were recompensed in no slight way for their godlessness”). Here the significance of the source of the Suda article becomes plainer. Aelian was the author of On Providence and On Divine Manifestations. In the former, Aelian displays some knowledge of Epicurean science when he writes that the Principal Doctrines claim—irrever- ently—that the world is made up of atoms and that “everything vanishes into atoms” (καὶ παντελῶς ἀφανίζεσθαι ἐς ἀτόμους, fr. 61.8–9 Hercher). Our passage about the deaths of Epicurus’ associates is culled from On Divine Manifes- tations, whose theme was divine vengeance. In Aelian’s estimation, retribution for lack of reverence toward the divine took the form of violent assaults on the human body. His is a radical attack that relies on the common (but erroneous) construction of the Epicureans as atheists. An outlook that associated Epi- curean science with disrespect for the gods is also clear in a very diﬀerent source, the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, where the stark alternatives are between “Providence or atoms” (4.3.2). Another fragment from Aelian’s writings is preserved in the Suda under the entry for the word kakodaimon (“ill-starred” or “possessed by an evil spirit”), where Epicureanism provided the exemplar:

Κακοδαίμων: ὁ θεῷ ἐπαχθής, καὶ ὁ τὴν ψυχὴν ἔχων ἐμπαθῆ. Αἰλιανός: ἀνὴρ Εὐφρόνιος, κακοδαίμων ἀνήρ, καὶ ἔχαιρεν ἐπὶ ταῖς Έπικούρου φλυαρίαις καὶ ἐξ ἐκείνων κακὰ εἰρύσατο δύο, ἄθεός τε καὶ ἀκόλαστος εἶναι.57

[Kakodaimon: One who is hateful to a god, and who has a soul controlled by passion. AELIAN [writes]: “[there was] a man [named] Euphronius, a kakodaimon man, and he rejoiced in the nonsense of Epicurus and from it he drew two evils: to be godless and to be licentious.”]

57. Suda, kappa 156 Adler = Aelian, fr. 89.1–2 Hercher. 156      

Aelian’s story of this hapless Epicurean can be traced throughout the Suda, in seven other entries on Greek culture or interesting words.58 When Euphronius is stricken with illness, radical renunciation of Epicurean teachings is the cure. He turns first to the doctors, but his disease is too severe for them. Shaking vi- olently and near death, he is taken to “the sons of Asclepius,” where a priest announces that there is only one means to salvation and only one cure: εἴπερ οὖν τὰ Έπικούρου βιβλία καταφλέξας, καὶ τῶν ἀθέων τε καὶ ἀσεβῶν καὶ ἐκτεθηλυμμένων στιγμάτων τὴν σποδὸν ἀναδεύσει κηρῷ ὑγρῷ, καὶ ἐπιπλασάμενος τὴν νηδὺν καὶ τὸν θώρακα πάντα καταδήσει ταινίαις (“if, having burned the books of Epicurus, he will soak up the ashes of the godless, pro- fane, and effeminate blotches with wet wax and plaster them over his belly and whole chest and bind it with bandages”).59 An apparently related fragment refers to the rejoicing of Euphronius’ relatives, thus suggesting that the cure was effective.60 e fragmentary nature of the text makes it difficult to ascertain whether Euphronius is meant to be an early Epicurean or Aelian’s contemporary. Plutarch, however, clearly limits his scrutiny of the Epicurean body to Epicurus and his immediate followers and companions. As though in a vacuum, Plutarch’s anti-Epicurean screeds generally present Plutarch and his anti-Epi- curean interlocutors responding to ancient texts, rather than engaging the Epi- cureans among their contemporaries. Except for the introductory scenes that frame the discussions and diatribes, the view of Epicureanism presented in the Reply to Colotes, Is Live Unknown a Wise Precept?, and On the Fact at Epicu- rus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible largely ignores the passage of time, and Plutarch’s tirades and denunciations of Epicureanism are self-contained. Plutarch’s presentation of Epicureans in works set entirely in Plutarch’s own lifetime is quite different. ose portraits even correct the stereotypes that play such prominent roles in Plutarch’s Epicurean-hostile pieces. Or perhaps a less naive reading would interpret them as Plutarch’s alternative stereotypes—his Epicurean friends in the Moralia are not necessarily based on historical persons. At any rate, several figures in Plutarch’s Table Talk make relatively positive impressions. An Epicurean named Xenocles, for example, weighs in on the salubriousness of fruit, as opposed to elaborate dishes (635b–c). Alexander the

58. e texts are discussed by FitzGibbon (2003). 59. Suda, alpha 1851 Adler = Aelian, fr. 89.17–21 Hercher. FitzGibbon (2003) translates stig- mata (“markings”) as “scribblings,” which may make the sense clearer. 60. is is the interpretation of FitzGibbon (2003).    157

Epicurean is “accomplished and fond of learning” (635e), whereas Plutarch, who is avoiding eggs because of a dream about them, drolly presents himself in that dialogue as superstitious. e mild Boethus, an Epicurean and mathematician who appears in Table Talk as well as in Why the Pythia No Longer Delivers Oracles in Verse, is never pilloried, though it is possible that we should regard him as the recipient of “incidental polemic.”61 Strikingly pertinent—in light of the morbid illnesses that other texts impute to Epicurus and his brothers and associates—is Plutarch’s portrait of Zo- phyrus, a kind-spirited and apparently healthy doctor. Plutarch presents Zo- phyrus as his friend and identifies him as being “well conversant with the words of Epicurus” (εὖ μάλα τοῖς Έπικούρου λόγοις ἐνωμιληκώς). Zophyrus speaks in favor of Epicurus in response to some youngsters “with no long familiarity with the ancient texts” who had criticized Epicurus’ discussion of sexual intercourse in his Symposium (653c). Further defense of Epicurus is also implied in the same scene when another, non-Epicurean character launches into locker-room talk at the table (whereas Zophyrus explains that Epicurus had presented his disquisition about sex as moral instruction during an aer-dinner walk).62 Al- though Plutarch and others at the table sometimes refute these characters’ Epi- curean ideas, they give them a fair hearing. No information, however, is betrayed about any physical attributes of these characters.

The Epicurean Wardrobe

I have already described an early Epicurean notional dress code that was austere, conventional, and thoroughly Greek. How did his detractors reconcile the apparently ubiquitous portraits with their own depiction of the Epicureans as unmanly breachers of decorum? It would be diﬃcult to mesh the fatherly appearance of the seated portraits of Epicurus with his alleged eﬀeminacy and lack of courage. Opponents may have simply ignored or discounted the statues, but it is conceivable that particular detractors parodied or decoded the statues by exaggerating particular features. A critic might, for example, square a view

61. FitzGibbon 2008: 445. FitzGibbon (448) points out that Boethus’ name (“Helper”) parallels Epicurus’ (also “Helper”), thus suggesting that he is a fictional character. 62. e discussion of sex by Olympichos (who bears another suspiciously appropriate name) is characterized by another guest as unseemly “athletes’ talk . . . reeking of their cottabus-play- ing and eating of meat” (Ἀθλητικὰ ταῦτ’ . . . παντάπασιν ἔτι τῆς κοτταβίσεως ὄζοντα καὶ τῶν κρεοφαγιῶν ἐκείνων, 654c). 158       that insisted on the insalubrity of Epicureanism with the frailty of Epicurus’ body as it was depicted in stone. Perhaps relevant here is Seneca’s figurative description of voluptas “lurking around the baths and sweating rooms and places that fear the magistrates; so, languid, reeking of wine and perfume, pallid or else painted and made up like a corpse” (De vita beata 7.3). Although adding notional perfume to the image of the himation-wearing Epicurus would be far- fetched, there is a logic to giving him a deathly pallor. Deliberately protecting the skin from the elements was the height of decadence for Roman men. Else- where Seneca asserts that the Epicureans are “an eﬀeminate, shade-loving clan” (delicata et umbratica turba, Ben. 4.1.3). Having lamented the alleged current decline in Roman morality (“the favorite pastime of Roman moralizers of every generation”),63 Seneca cites the fad of weighing down one’s mule with crystal, myrrhine, and engraved works made by the best artists and adds, “Everyone’s slave-boys-in-training ride around with ointment-smeared faces so that neither sun nor cold hurts their tender skin; it is disgraceful that there are no boys in your retinue with healthy faces clear of cosmetics” (Epistle 123.7). Also, in On the Happy Life, Seneca describes why some people (not, apparently, just the Epicureans) hate virtus: “Your hatred of virtus and its practitioners is not surprising. For diseased eyes dread the sun, and the brilliant day is avoided by noc- turnal animals, who are stunned by the first signs of dawn and everywhere seek their lairs and, afraid of the light, hide themselves in some hole” (De vita beata 20.6.6). Another approach to reconciling the depictions of Epicurus would be to construct an image that played on the stereotype of the self-indulgent, fish-eating Epicurean. A first-century BCE Roman candelabrum in New York’s Metro- politan Museum of Art may be relevant here. It is capped with a statuette depicting a himation-wearing man with ample protruding belly and the full beard characteristic of all of the surviving portraits of Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Hermarchus. As would befit an Epicurean stereotype, this figure and the lamps that hung below him are likely to have overseen dinner parties or other nighttime gatherings. Perhaps this man with “the proudly displayed fat belly and the uninhibited self-satisfied demeanor” is meant to be Epicurus or a generic Epi- curean as Zanker has suggested.64 His rotundity would be consistent with the

63. Williams 2010: 147. 64. Zanker (1995: 125), calling it a “genre figure,” identifies it as an Epicurean. For a photograph, see Zanker’s figure 70 (p. 126).    159 stereotype of the banqueting Epicurean. Horace, when in Epicurean mode, presents himself as “fat, buffed, and well oiled—a pig from Epicurus’ herd” (pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute . . . Epicuri de grege porcum, Epistles 1.4.15–16) and as a “fat Phaeacian” (pinguis . . . Phaeaxque reverti, Epistles 1.15.24). Both the Horace character and the candelabrum figure are comfort- ably plump. But apart from the beard and the himation (and the belly, if we accept the cliché), there is nothing particularly Epicurean about the statuette. He may represent any philosopher or elite Greek, Epicurean or not. In any case, it would be difficult to determine the statuette’s location in the long tradition of Epicurean typecasting. Does the statue mock Epicurus? Or would his first viewers have seen the figure as charming, sympathetic, and congenial? One non-Epicurean literary depiction may be based on an unfriendly reading of the “plentiful hair with locks arranged according to a set pattern” as we see it in the statues.65 In Alciphron’s Letters of Parasites, the philosopher guests at a birthday feast exhibit the typecast appearances appropriate to each school. e Stoic is grubby, with scraggly beard and unkempt hair. But the Epicurean (a man named Zenocrates), who relies on his full beard to affect a solemn air, is “not neglectful of his locks.”66 is well-coifed Epicurean stares at the harp girl with a melting, lascivious look through half-closed eyes and publicly takes her into his arms. His garb, however, receives no mention. Other non-Epicurean texts assign to the Epicurean men transgressive attire that would disrupt the impact of the sculptures. e fact that their garments are metaphorical makes them all the more interesting. In Athenaeus’ e Learned Banqueters, for example, there is our allegiance-switching Dionysius of Herak- leia, who “hops over” from the Stoa to the Garden. Timon portrays this new Epicurean as old and inappropriately amorous, and either Timon or Athenaeus (as commentator on Timon’s verses) describes the conversion as a changing of clothes: περὶ δὲ Διονυσίου τού Ήρακλεώτου τί δεῖ καὶ λέγειν; ὃς ἄντικρυς ἀποδὺς τὸν τῆς ἀρετῆς χιτῶνα ἀνθινὰ μετημφιάσατο (“Why do I need even to mention Dionysius of Herakleia, who, having openly taken off his chiton of virtue, exchanged it for a flowery one?” Ath. 7.281e). e word here translated “flowery” (ἀνθινά) is elsewhere used of flowered or bright-colored women’s

65. Richter 1984: 118–19. 66. ἦν δὲ καὶ ὁ Έπικούρειος Ζηνοκράτης, οὐκ ἀτημέλητος τοὺς κικίννους καὶ ἐπὶ βαθεῖ τῷ πώγωνι σεμνυνόμενος (Alciphron 19.3). 160       dresses.67 e femininity and frivolousness of a flowery garment must be the point here, although “flowery” has the connotation elsewhere of mottled or variegated. ere is no implication of effeminacy when Diogenes Laertius records the following about the philosopher Bion, who also changed schools several times: “Because he mixed up every type of speech, they say that Eratos- thenes said that he was the first to dress philosophy in ‘flowery’ clothing” (4.52).68 Seneca dresses the Epicurean in a surfeit of fabric that projects an effeminate, non-Greek impression. To round out the general effect of the metaphor, Seneca and other sources add tympana, incense, and other accoutrements of Eastern religions. Having prefaced his description with a typical disclaimer, Seneca clothes the hypothetical Epicurean in a woman’s dress:

Itaque non dicam quod plerique nostrorum, sectam Epicuri flagitiorum magistram esse, sed illud dico: male audit, infamis est. ‘At inmerito.’ Hoc scire qui potest nisi interius admissus? frons eius ipsa dat locum fabulae et ad malam spem inritat. Hoc tale est quale uir fortis stolam indutus: constat tibi pudicitia, uirilitas salua est, nulli corpus tuum turpi patientiae uacat, sed in manu tympanum est. (De vita beata 13)

[I shall not say what most of our own [Stoics] say, that the sect of Epicurus is the instructress of indecencies. But I do say this: it has a bad reputation; it is notorious. “But that is unfair,” someone might protest. But how would an outsider know? Its very facade provides opportunity for gossip and inspires wicked expectation. It is like a man in a dress: your chastity remains, your virility is unimpaired, your body has not submitted sexually, but in your hand is a tympanum.]

e tympanum, a shallow handheld drum with a rim that might include embedded bells, had been imported to Rome from Greece and Asia Minor. Its signification is clear. A frequent attribute of the goddess Cybele, the tympanum was also associated with the Galli, her castrated priests, who were “[p]erhaps the ultimate scare-figure of Roman masculinity.”69 According to an anecdote preserved by Diogenes Laertius, Epicureans had been compared to eunuchs

67. For example, Plutarch 2.340d and Phylarchus, fr. 45. 68. Because Satyrs also wore flowery dresses, the issue may be more complex here. See LSJ, s.v. ἄνθινος. 69. Williams 2010: 140.    161 hundreds of years earlier. When asked why, though students from the other philosophical schools sometimes go over to the Garden, Epicureans never leave to join the other schools, Epicurus’ contemporary Arcesilaus replies, “Because men can become eunuchs, but eunuchs never become men” (Diog. Laert. 4.43). As I mentioned in chapter 1, Arcesilaus’ attribution of eﬀeminacy to the Epi- cureans may have been a joke that brings up gender only coincidentally. But the charge becomes full-blown with Seneca. Lucretius’ and Philodemus’ negative assessment of the worship of Cybele may be evidence that the motif of Epi- curean as eunuch existed during the era of the Roman Republic. In this case, these first-century CE Epicureans would be defending Epicurus. Lucretius depicts the Galli, who are “thought to be unworthy” of bringing children into the world, as uncontrolled celebrants who process through the streets wielding tympana, cymbals, and other instruments and weapons (DRN 2.614–23; cf. Catullus, Carmina 63).70 It strikes me as significant that a contemporary Epi- curean also mentions worshippers of the goddess Cybele. Philodemus’ commentary on her followers occurs in his On Music, where he lists tympana and cymbals as instruments used in her rites.71 Ostensibly, Seneca is contrasting appearance with reality: outsiders expect a decadence that is not to be found inside Garden walls. Yet the man in a woman’s gown (albeit a metaphorical gown) is suspect nonetheless. e stola is always a woman’s garment except when worn by a man in a religious context. In an earlier piece of invective, Cicero had ridiculed Marc Antony for behaving as though another man (Curio) had given him a stola and married him (Phil. 2.44). According to some sources, Galli also dress as women. While Seneca associates the Galli (or worshipers of Cybele in general) with the Epicureans, both Philodemus and Lucretius attribute to her worshipers an inappropriate fear of the gods that is antithetical to the teachings of the Garden. For Lucretius, the goddess is a metaphor for the fecundity of the earth, and to worship her is to misconceive the gods. For Philodemus, “women and womanish men” are especially prone to being seduced by these rites. Although Seneca’s association of the Galli with Epicureans comes from a later generation, I suspect that Lu-

70. Philodemus does not name Cybele in the fragment, but Summers’ (1996) identification of “the great mother of the gods” and “the mother of the wild beasts” (DRN 2.598) as Cybele is surely correct. Summers argues that Lucretius’ description is based not on a Greek source but on his own witnessing of a Roman version of rites in honor of Cybele “as he saw it first- hand on the streets of Rome” (338). 71. Delattre 2007. 162       cretius and Philodemus are tacitly challenging a similar stereotype current in their own era. e parallel to such a response would be Lucretius’ tacit rejection of the Phaeacian/Epicurean equation. In addition to wearing the stola, Seneca’s Epicurean wears metaphorical sleeves. e sleeves—along with commentary that spells out their meaning— occur in a letter to Lucilius where Seneca defends his use of the words of Epi- curus. Rather than being peculiarly Epicurean, “they are public property and belong especially to us [the Stoics]” (publicae sunt et maxime nostrae). Seneca continues, sed illo magis adnotantur quia rarae interim interveniunt, quia inexspectatae, quia mirum est fortiter aliquid dici ab homine mollitiam professo (“But they are more noteworthy in him [Epicurus] because they appear spo- radically, when you do not expect them, and because it is startling that something courageous is spoken by a man who makes a practice of being eﬀemi- nate,” Epistles 33.2). At this point, Seneca once again qualifies his statement with a disclaimer: Ita enim plerique iudicant: apud me Epicurus est et fortis, licet manuleatus sit; fortitudo et industria et ad bellum prompta mens tam in Persas quam in alte cinctos cadit (“Such is the judgment of many: my own opinion is that Epicurus is strong and brave, sleeved though he be; bravery, diligence, and a spirit ready for battle are found among Persians as much as among men who gird themselves up high,” Epistles 33.2). Brave Roman soldiers, here presented as “real men,” bare their legs; and the normal attire of Roman men (whether tunic or toga) exposed one or both arms. e link between Asiatics and over- abundant clothing is a commonplace. In the Aeneid, for example the quasi-female and perfumed Trojans wear sleeves (9.614–20, 12.97). Persians committed the unthinkable (in the eyes of both Greeks and Romans) by wearing pants to match their sleeves, but the manly Roman soldier went beyond the eschewing of long, leg-covering robes by wearing a tight belt that allowed him to hike up his tunic. e connotations of the Epicurean gown and sleeves conjured up by Seneca are as unmistakable as the significance of the pallor he attributes to them in his vivid depiction of the virtus/voluptas figure De ( vita beata 7.3, quoted in the preceding chapter).

To Walk Like an Epicurean, in Rome

Seneca’s metaphoric garb adorns Epicurus or anonymous, symbolic Epicureans who are disconnected from time. eir clothing represents the Epicurean char-    163 acter, but Seneca oﬀers no commentary on the actual appearance of any particular Epicurean. With the possible exception of Aelian’s Euphronius, none of the Epicureans whose physical appearances I have examined in this chapter are presented as actual Epicurean contemporaries of their authors. For that, we must turn back to Cicero. e most vivid physical description of a man identified by his enemy as a contemporary Epicurean appears in the orations of Cicero that attack the character of L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, consul of 58 BCE and one of Cicero’s most energetic denouncers aer the illegal execution of the Cataline conspirators. Cicero’s Against Piso (55 BCE), a “masterpiece of misrepresentation,”72 offers the most sustained and memorable caricature of Piso, but the travesty had already asserted itself in orations from the previous year, the Post Reditum in Senatu and the Pro Sestio. In these three speeches, Piso is repeatedly singled out as a decadent and even disgusting Epicurean. Under the sway of Graeculi (“Greeklings”), he has joined “those who argue that no hour should be devoid of pleasure” (qui disputant horam nullam vacuam voluptate esse debere, Red. sen. 14). Like the Epicurean he is, he considers pain an evil: fearing physical violence alone, he discounts bad reputation, disgrace, infamy, and degradation (Pis. 65). Nothing is more self-indulgent and licentious than Piso (Pis. 66). Also in accord with his Epicureanism, he would teach others that the gods are neither kind nor wrathful toward anyone—a laughable claim, Cicero adds, since the gods are enraged at Piso (Pis. 59). Worse yet, Piso is not even a good Epicurean. Each of the three speeches contains a disclaimer calculated to appease any listener whose knowledge of Epicureanism goes beyond the stereotype. To forestall any objection that his characterization of the philosophers of the Garden might be unjust, Cicero concedes that Piso, as an Epicurean, comes “from the pigsty, not the school” (ex hara producte, non ex schola, Pis. 37). He could not even say the names of the Epicurean philosophers (Sest. 23).73 He had listened to his “pleasure-seeking Greeks” (voluptarii Graeci) not at the loier level where they ought to be heard but “in the brothels, in debauchery, in eating and drinking” (audis in prae-

72. Nisbet 1960: xvi. DeLacy (1941: 49) shows how Cicero constructs a portrait of Piso that conforms to “the anti-Epicurean polemic current in the popular philosophical literature of Cicero’s time.” 73. Nomina poterat dicere (Sest. 23) may mean that he did not know their names or that he did not know how to say them. See Kaster 2006: 168. 164       sepibus, audis in stupris, audis in cibo et vino, Pis. 42).74 He had not devoted serious study to Epicureanism but had simply jumped on board, “taken in by the single word pleasure” (non penitus illi disciplinae quaecumque est deditus, sed captus uno verbo voluptatis, Red. sen. 14). Without investigating the nature of Epicurean pleasure, he had simply devoured the word voluptas itself with all his soul and body (verbum ipsum omnibus animi et corporis devorarat, Sest. 23). His enthusiasm for particular words of Epicurus made him want to close the schoolbook (literally, “seal the tablets”), shutting out his teacher’s explanation of the subtleties (Pis. 69).75 (Yet Cicero adds as an aside that Epicurus does indeed say that he “cannot conceive any good apart from physical pleasure.”)76 Even Piso’s pursuit of pleasure was a ludicrous failure: he served his guests on cheap dinnerware; instead of fish, he oﬀered slabs of tainted meat; the bread was store-bought, and the wine came from the local bar; the slaves who tended the guests were dirty, and some were even decrepit old men. Instead of lavish comforts, his parties featured “five Greeks—sometimes more—crammed together per couch,” with the uncouth Piso providing a full couch only to himself (Pis. 67).77 Focusing his attack on Piso’s interest in Epicureanism was essential to Ci- cero’s strategy, because Piso’s political record supplied too few facts that Cicero could exploit without losing credibility with his audience. As Robert Kaster has put it, “the career of Piso . . . oﬀers nothing to support and not a little to contradict Cicero’s portrait.”78 Moreover, the face, body, and general comportment of this adversary conformed to Roman notions of moral probity and virtus. Ac- cording to all three orations, Piso projected an image of extreme masculinity on the outside: dark, unadorned, severe in expression, with shaggy eyebrows and

74. e connection between Epicureans and animals is implicit here again: here praesepe connotes a drinking establishment or brothel, but the primary meaning is “stable.” 75. Here Cicero quotes a Roman proverb that describes an incompetent: “A cripple is hog- ging the ball.” 76. Etenim dicit, ut opinor, se nullum bonum intellegere posse demptis corporis voluptatibus (Pis. 69). 77. Paraphrased, the rhetorical strategy here is “Piso indulges in immoral pleasures, but he can’t even do it well.” is sketch resonated with the stereotype of the miser in Roman literature and eliminated the possibility that any frugality in Piso’s household could be due to Epi- curean sensibilities. Gowers (1993: 10) notes “a confusion of moral systems.” Traditional morality condemned lavish banquets, but recent increases in wealth had made them common among the elite (well represented in Cicero’s audience). 78. Kaster 2006: 12.    165 beard and an impressive, manly gait.79 Cicero’s audience was well aware of these visual attributes, which presented Cicero with a seemingly intractable problem. In the public discourse of the Roman Republic, where “great representational meaning” resided in physical appearance, Piso’s exterior had positive connotations.80 Tony Corbeill (1996a: 170) has described Cicero’s predicament thus: “If one were to use the ethical criteria of Roman invective, Piso would appear unassailable.” So instead of ignoring the physical reality, Cicero accused Piso of visual fraud: “It was your eyes, eyebrows, forehead, and in fact your entire countenance—which is a sort of silent language that reveals the mind—this is what pulled people in, this is what deceived, betrayed, and conned those who did not know you” (Pis. 1). A man’s morality should be reflected in his appearance, but Cicero presents the case of Piso as one of those “rare instances in which seeming is not being.”81 us Cicero’s constant focus on Piso’s appearance exploits the conventions of Roman invective by using Piso as an example in reverse. Cicero intertwines that broader rhetorical strategy with the commonplaces of anti-Epicurean discourse to produce a seamless whole. Cicero denounces Piso by exposing his (supposedly secret) connections with the (obviously vile) Garden, but the force of his tirade against Piso’s Epicureanism lies in Cicero’s relentless focus on appearance and demeanor. His paradoxical claim is that Piso’s near criminality is compounded by the fact that Piso, as an Epicurean, projects a counterfeit image that is precisely what an Epicurean does not look like. An Epicurean, aer all, should look like a man devoid of virtus and devoted to voluptas. As Corbeill explains, imputing deficient masculinity to an opponent was standard: “[R]hetoric offered a public site for contesting the definition of maleness, with the political opponent being consistently stigmatized as effeminate, a charge that implicates him in a host of vices associated lack of control over the body.” But effeminacy was not “a charge available at the whim of any accuser.”82 In Against Vatinius, for example, Cicero reviles Vatinius ag-

79. On the likelihood that Cicero’s physical descriptions of enemies and allies were accurate (though likely to be exaggerated), see Corbeill 2004: 110–11. 80. Corbeill 1996: 169. 81. Corbeill 2004: 119. Elsewhere Corbeill (1996: 169) describes how Piso breaks the most common rule of Roman invective, that “visual scrutiny” will yield the key to true moral character. Langlands (2006: 287) writes that pudicitia must be “displayed in the body, yet the body was always open to reinterpretation.” 82. Corbeill 1997: 99–128. 166       gressively but never says that he is unmanly, and no opponent seems to have flung the charge at Cicero himself. e ways in which the vilification of Piso qua Epicurean are tightly wound up with the charge of inner eﬀeminacy demonstrate that the insults are not, in this case, generic or gendered gratu- itously. Once Cicero had chosen Epicureanism as Piso’s vice, well-camouflaged eﬀeminacy became a requisite attribute. e assertion that the presentation of a sham appearance is a typically Epi- curean trait would arise later in Cicero’s philosophical works: “[T]he more sober-seeming an adherent of the sect was, the more easily could he be painted a hypocrite.”83 In fact, Cicero elsewhere recommended this strategy to any aspiring orator as a general approach, not only in the case of the Garden (cf. De inventione 2.34). In On Ends, Cicero has it both ways. First, in the context of the dispute over the definition of pleasure (which I examined in the previous chapter), Cicero implies that it is out of duplicity that Epicureans claim repeatedly that outsiders do not understand what Epicurus meant by pleasure. e sub- terfuge is simply meant to cover up the disreputable nature of voluptas. us Cicero asks his Epicurean interlocutor Torquatus, “Would you change your opinions like clothes—one set at home and another in public? Outside all pretense, with the truth under wraps?” (aut etiam, ut vestitum, sic sententiam habeas aliam domesticam, aliam forensem, ut in fronte ostentatio sit, intus veritas occultetur? Fin. 2.77). But several hundred words later, when he refers to Epicurean friendship, Cicero claims that actual Epicureans have higher stan- dards than their doctrines imply. Lamenting that some people’s lives contradict their professed beliefs, Cicero notes that while others do not live up the stan- dards set by their words, “these people’s [the Epicureans’] actions seem to me to be better than their words” (2.81). Piso’s walk was particularly problematic.84 In his defense speech for Publius Sestius, who was on trial for vis (“public violence”), Cicero speaks of Sestius’ enemy Piso thus: “How foul, how fierce, how formidable he is in appearance as he marches along. You would have guessed he was one of our bearded forefathers, a model of the power of old, the image of antiquity, a pillar of the state” (quam taeter incedebat, quam truculentus, quam terribilis aspectu! unum aliquem te ex barbatis illis, exemplum imperi veteris, imaginem antiquitatis, col-

83. Kaster 2006a: 167. 84. Corbeill 1996: 153.    167 umen rei publicae diceres intueri, Sest. 19).85 But appearance does not mesh with reality, and Piso is in fact a threat to the republic.86 He had “crept into oﬃce by human error”; the people had voted for a Piso, not for this imposter by the same name (Pis. 1). Even his name is a fraud, as Cicero claims repeatedly, calling him “Caesoninus Calventius,” a name that links him to his maternal grandfather in Gaul. At one point, he dubs him sardonically as “Caesoninus Semiplacentinus [“half-Gaul”] Calventius.” Cicero’s hearers may not believe that there was in fact a change of name, so he asserts that he is privy to the real story through his own family connection to Piso by marriage. Like his body, even Piso’s house has a false exterior: “His soul was concealed by his face, his scabrous acts by the walls of his house” (etenim animus eius vultu, flagitia parietibus tegebantur, Sest. 22). His clandestine pleasures avoid the front door and enter at a secret entrance (pseudothyro, Red. sen. 14). Cicero attaches special significance to Piso’s eyebrows, the forbidding appearance of which he sometimes exaggerates into comic ugliness.87 At one point, he marks the significance by thrice repeating the word for “eyebrow” in quick succession in one short passage: What could Cicero say about Piso’s eyebrows? His eyebrows seemed to be “the basis for the whole year of his consulship”; his eyebrows seemed to be “a pledge for the Republic” (supercilio . . . su- percilium . . . supercilio, Sest. 19). Again, we have the misleading and “all-concealing” brow that fooled the people by obscuring actual villainy (in- signem nequitiam frontis involutam integumentis, Pis. 12). Elsewhere in Roman invective, an orator isolates a particular physical defect in his opponent and exaggerates it into a highly comic or appalling visual monstrosity that in turn reveals true character. But the case of Piso requires a reversal of this strategy. Ci- cero cannot call him eﬀeminate, so he asserts obliquely that Piso looks hypermasculine, a claim that intensifies his assertion that Piso’s virile exterior is a ruse. e disguise is overdone. His hair is wildly unkempt (capillo ita horrido,

85. I follow Kaster 2006: 161 in employing “foul,” “fierce,” and “formidable” to convey Ci- cero’s alliterative taeter . . . truculentus . . . terribilis. Corbeill (2004: 119) calls attention to the fact that truculentus (used by Cicero elsewhere only to skewer Rullus) suggests inhuman and unnatural behavior. As Corbeill (2004: 119) puts it, Piso’s appearance of virility goes “over the top.” 86. For Piso as a threat to the state, see Corbeill 1996: 169. 87. e description of such a forehead might conjure up the senex iratus of Roman comedy, as suggested by Hughes (1992) and Klodt (2003: 49), or—in the other extreme—Epicurus (Griﬃn 2001: 98). 168      

Sest. 19).88 He is too stern, and the stateliness of his gait is so exaggerated as to be comical.89 Too hairy, Piso slips up by overdoing the Roman “hairier than thou” competition.90 While he knows how to play the stern patriarch with heavy brow, he is at times so immoveable and coarsely inarticulate that it is hard to know whether one is talking to a human being or to a post in the forum (Red. sen. 14). Here Cicero makes two attacks at once: Piso’s feigned virility—in its coarseness—befits the Cappadocian he really is; and Piso’s rugged complex- ion surpasses manliness, becoming the darkness of a Gaul (Pis. 1). All along, the implication is that this counterfeit masculinity covers an effeminate and profligate interior—the interior of the essential Epicurean. But it is not merely a matter of reversing Cicero’s descriptions so that the real Epi- curean looks as delicate as Piso is rugged, as pale as Piso is dark, as simpering as Piso is gruff, or as insubstantial as Piso looks serious. Cicero spares the audience the task of compiling a table of opposites: it is not Piso but his co-consul, the openly despicable Gabinius, who looks like the Epicurean. e fact that Gabinius has no connection with the Garden is irrelevant: his status as the visual polar opposite of Piso in the oration Against Piso is enough. Cicero repeatedly presents the consuls of the year 58 as an inseparable pair of villains who acted in unison for the entire year of their consulship.91 As Kaster points out in his recent commentary on the Pro Sestio, the paths of the two consuls were not as parallel as Cicero asserts, and even midway through their consulships, their political affiliations had diverged.92 But for Cicero, the political muscle of these two “traffickers of provinces” and “hawkers of the senate’s dignity” is a single force, and their vices worked in concert (mercatores provinciarum ac venditores vestar dignitatis, Red. sen. 10). According to this highly artificial scheme, the horrors of each complemented those of the other: as much as Piso looked venerable, Gabinius looked like a “recognizable criminal.”93 Any observer could see

88. Compare Williams 1999: 131: “excessive masculinity is embodied in unkempt hair, skin, and beard, as well as bristly legs and chest.” 89. See Corbeill 2004: 118–19 on Cicero’s language for the unnatural qualities of Piso’s walk. 90. On hairiness as a masculine attribute, see Gleason 1995: 74. As for Piso’s own self-fashioning, the hairiness that Cicero presented as a fiendish disguise may in fact represent Piso’s own homage to the statues of Epicurus. Unfortunately, we do not know whether Cicero called him a bearded Epicurean or a barbaric Epicurean. As Griﬃn (2001: 99) writes, “All we can say is that if Piso had a beard it would surely have been the carefully tended beard of the Epi- curean statues.” 91. Kaster 2006: 12–13. 92. Kaster 2006: 13. 93. Langlands 2006: 288.    169 that Gabinius was sexually and fiscally corrupt, while Piso hid his similarly hedonistic habits behind a misleadingly respectable exterior. Cicero supplies abundant cues to encourage his hearers to envision Piso and Gabinius as a duo by listing their attributes in parallel sentences and by referring to Gabinius as Piso’s par, a term that can mean “match” or “equal” but can also have the connotation of “partner” or “mate,” as when Piso enters the Circus of Flaminius “with that partner of yours” (cum tuo illo pare, Red. sen. 17). We are also to imagine them as dining or drinking together—during the day no less.94 When Cicero describes Piso being hauled out of a dark tavern to the senate, he is described as though he had Gabinius on his arm (Pis. 18). Most tellingly, Cicero enjoins his audience to study both men’s faces and walks together:

quorum, per deos immortalis, si nondum scelera vulneraque inusta rei publicae vultis recordari, vultum atque incessum animis intuemini: facilius eorum facta occurrent mentibus vestris, si ora ipsa oculis proposueritis. (Sest. 17)

[By the immortal gods, if you do not yet wish to recall the wounding crimes with which they branded the commonwealth, picture in your minds the expressions on their faces and how they strode about: what they did will more readily come to mind if you imagine the way they looked.]95

e diﬀerence is that Gabinius looks the part. What did Gabinius look like, according to Cicero? Piso may look venerable, but Gabinius’ appearance—especially his mouth—makes it obvious that Gabinius has prostituted himself and subjected his body to “impure lust” (Red. sen. 11 and 13).96 He is a “dancer” (Red. sen. 13)—and a naked dancer at that (Pis. 22)—and even a “depilated dancing girl” (Pis. 18.8), whose hair and skin present the reverse of Piso’s shagginess. Cicero’s vocabulary for Gabinius’ excessive grooming is as rich as his vocabulary for Piso’s rough hairiness. In the Pro Sestio, Cicero lines up their physical attributes, as in parallel columns: “First, this one . . . And dear gods, now the other” (Alter . . . Alter, o di boni! Sest. 18 and 19). His hair curled, Gabinius drips

94. e tavern was dark (tenebricosa popina, Pis. 18), but the senate is in session, so the scene must be presented as taking place during the day. 95. Translation by Kaster (2006: 49). 96. Red. sen. 13: fluentibus buccis. See Corbeill 1996: 101–26 on the motif of the impure mouth elsewhere in Cicero’s invective. 170       with perfume (unguentis aﬄuens, calamistrata coma, Sest. 18), while Piso is coarsely clad, his hair unkempt (vestitus aspere . . . capillo ita horrido, Sest. 19). e foreheads were opposed as well: where Piso has the furrowed brow, Gabinius has the burn marks from a curling iron (Red. sen.16). Gabinius’ effeminate saunter is also the polar opposite of Piso’s hypermasculine stride, the two presenting a comic contrast.97 While Piso’s house looks respectable from the outside, Gabinius’ is obviously a brothel (Red. sen. 11). e dissimilarity is stressed again when Cicero says that he fled neither Piso’s brow nor Gabinius’ castanets (Pis. 20). Calling Gabinius a dancing girl apparently came easily and must have meshed with the impression his physical appearance made on Cicero’s audience. (e story of his indecent dancing at a party may have been true.) In comparison, an image of Piso dancing was impossible. But in tune with his implicit claim that these apparent opposites are in fact exactly the same underneath, Ci- cero supplies Piso with clandestine dancers in a passage in the same oration. When Cicero describes rhetorically how Piso le his province Macedonia via Samothrace and asos, he places in Piso’s retinue some “eﬀeminate dancers and those pretty brothers [teneris saltatoribus formosis fratribus] Autobulus, Athamante, and Timocles” (Pis. 89) e dancers are nameless, and the boys’ names are obscure to us and presumably to Cicero’s audience as well. is is a scene that the audience has of course not witnessed, but Cicero lists the names as though to document his intimate knowledge of the dancers and lovely boys in Piso’s retinue.98 Also central to Cicero’s conceit of the diametrically opposed consuls are Piso’s ubiquitous eyebrows. When asked what he thought of Cicero’s consulship, Piso answers gravely that he “disapproves of brutality,” and the grim eyebrows play their role: “one pushed up to the forehead, the other falling down to the chin” (respondes altero ad frontem sublato, altero ad mentum depresso supercilio crudelitatem tibi non placere, Pis. 14). Gabinius’ appearance is described just as colorfully when he expresses his own displeasure. But Gabinius’ exterior is the reverse of Piso’s: “full of wine, languor, and sexual incontinence, with oiled hair and braided locks, heavy eyes, dripping mouth, with his voice low and slurred, that grave actor announced his intense displeasure at the punish-

97. Klodt (2003: 49–50) describes how Cicero’s caricatures belong to the comic stage, with Gabinius as diva and Piso as the pater durus. 98. On the list of boys’ names as “proof” of an insider’s knowledge, see Nisbet 1961: 160.    171 ment of untried citizens” (Red. sen. 13). Gabinius’ morality was in full view, and Cicero reveals that only a disguise prevents Piso from looking exactly like him.

Poetry War

ere is another opposition in Against Piso that plays a subtler role in Cicero’s exposure of the “real” Piso lurking behind the facade. is is the relationship between Piso and the poet, scholar, and Epicurean philosopher Philodemus, which is especially complex because Philodemus’ stature as a poet is such that Cicero cannot paint him as an out-and-out villain. Anticipating protest from his audience that his portrait of Piso stresses transgressions and indulgences that contradict what should be deduced from his imposing physical appearance, Cicero occupies their position by asking, “How do I know this?” is time it is not Cicero’s family connection that makes him privy to inside information. Instead, he answers, “ere is a certain Greek who lives with him . . .” (Pis. 68). e Greek—unnamed but clearly Philodemus—shares none of Piso’s ugliness or miserliness and is described by Cicero at first as a gentleman (homo . . . hu- manus, Pis. 68). According to Cicero, Philodemus, too, is deceived by Piso’s brow. As Piso’s elder, Philodemus presents Epicureanism to him in a form that is not entirely vile, but Piso distorts it. Here we meet again the virtus/voluptas trope I explored in the previous chapter. When Piso hears the word voluptas, he mistakes Philodemus for a master of vices (libidines) rather than a teacher of philosophical virtus (Pis. 68). Philodemus’ role in Against Piso undergoes quiet shis: at times, he represents the more positive attributes of true Epicureanism that Piso’s crude mind cannot grasp. But sometimes—as a frivolous and immoral poet who gives voice to Piso’s covert pursuit of pleasures—Philodemus serves as a diﬀerent sort of foil. Unlike hideous Piso, Cicero describes Philode- mus as charming or “lovely” (venustus, Pis. 70), an adjective that is “a dubious compliment when applied to a man.”99 e historical relationship between Piso and Philodemus is not entirely clear. As we saw in chapter 1, both an epigram by Philodemus and his essay On the Good King according to Homer address someone named Piso. A reasonable (and perhaps unassailable) scholarly consensus identifies him as our Piso. It is also tempting to accept a scholarly consensus that identifies our Piso or his family as the owner of the library and villa in Herculaneum that contained

99. Nisbet 1961: 138. 172      

Philodemus’ nonliterary writings (saved for us in a fragmentary and charred state by the eruption of Vesuvius). Because Philodemus’ arcane writings (in his own hand?) are found there, the assumption is that Philodemus himself was a family guest. To Gigante, the villa was a summer retreat that Piso turned over as a school and gathering place to his less wealthy and younger Epicurean friends, over whom Philodemus presided.100 As attractive as the idea that Philodemus was Piso’s guest near the Bay of Naples is, the connection has miragelike qualities. James Porter has recently articulated a minority position thus: “Piso’s Epicurean leanings and Philodemus’s confirmed Epicureanism aside, the notion that the villa was a haven of Epicurean teaching, a college or retreat where acolytes could meet and discuss Epicurean philosophy and even live out Epicureanism in an idyllic setting . . . , while not strictly impossible or even improbable, nevertheless is based on nothing more than a desire to see things in this way.”101 Still, despite our lack of access to the precise historical details, and whether or not the villa of the papyri was a retreat that Piso sometimes turned over to Philodemus, it seems clear that Cicero puts Philodemus in Piso’s entourage. But alluding to a general connection between Philodemus and Piso is not enough: Cicero can point to a particular document that the audience knows or ought to know. at document is a body of poetry, an entire genre “that practi- cally all the rest of the Epicureans are said to neglect” (quae fere ceteros neglegere dicunt, Pis. 79). As though to assuage a protest from his hearers who admire Philodemus’ poetry, Cicero at first describes it as witty, graceful, elegant, and surpassingly clever (ita festivum, ita concinnum, ita elegans, nihil ut fieri posit argutius, Pis. 79). e poems are the product not of an unmanly scoundrel but simply of “a mere Greekling, a parasite, a poet.”102 But then his presentation of Philodemus devolves into the assertion that Philodemus has written extremely “delicate” (delicatissimis) poems that expose and catalog at length all of Piso’s “lusts, all his sexual transgressions, all types of banquets and drinking parties, and all his adulteries.”103 While Piso presents an austere exterior, his friend’s po-

100. Gigante 1995: 1–13. Stylistic evidence may suggest that the villa was built a few years later than the time of Cicero’s oration in 55 BCE (Wojcik 1986: 35), and it is even possible that the library was established generations later. 101. Porter 2007: 99–100. Porter cites also De Lacy 1993. 102. Non ut impurum, non ut improbum, non ut audacem, sed ut Graeculum, ut adsenta- torem, ut poetam (Pis. 28). 103. Omnis hominis libidines, omnia stupra, omnia cenarum conviviorumque genera, adulte- ria (Pis. 29).    173 ems reveal his true self “as in a mirror” (tamquam in speculo, Pis. 29). Cicero asserts that he would recite the poems (well known as they are) were they not inappropriate to this oratorical context and were he not averse to impugning the character of the poet Philodemus. Following Cicero on this path of forensic investigation, we find that a survey of the thirty-eight surviving epigrams of Philodemus does indeed reveal a string of poems that feature Eros, wine, and song. Some present topoi too well worn to be taken as self-disclosure: the choice between a hetaera and a virgin (Epigram 11), an itemized and appreciative list of a woman’s body parts (Epi- gram 12), sex for hire (Epigram 20), and sex by the light of the moon (Epigram 14). Epigram 26 focuses on adultery, but the poem’s form draws on the conventions of the paraclausithyron (a poem in the voice of a lover waiting hopelessly at a locked door). is was a well-established genre, though Philodemus’s poem departs from tradition by describing not the usual man but a woman, who— drenched with rain—has arrived at her lover’s door only to find that he wants to sit and talk. One poem in particular oﬀers a pseudo-etymology for Philodemus’ name: the pentameters assert that he fell in love with a woman named Demo from Paphos, then one named Demo from Samos, another Demo from Hysiai, and another from Argos. is propensity makes him a Demo-lover and gives him the name Philo-Demus (Epigram 10). Not a likely candidate for an autobiographical reading. From Cicero’s treatment, one would not guess that several of Philodemus’ poems present marriage in a favorable light or focus on a turn to “loier thoughts” at the time of marriage and maturity (Epigrams 4–7). One poem in particular might hold up as a document for a biographer because, unlike the paraclausithyron and the other poems described above, it does not conform to literary convention but is written in the voice of a married or soon-to-be married poet “whose white hair announces the age of intelligence” (Epigram 5). Further strengthening the possibility that these poems might reflect on Philodemus’ own life is the name of the wife in some of the poems. She is Xan- thippe, the namesake of Socrates’ wife and thus the archetype of the philosopher’s wife.104 Among the thirty-eight poems (admittedly a small sampling of Philodemus’ original oeuvre), the only one that mentions Piso is the invitation poem discussed in chapter 1 of this book. e modest gathering Piso is sum-

104. On the possibility that his friends called Philodemus “Socrates,” see Sider 1997: 37. 174       moned to there is the opposite of the parties attributed to Epicureans by hostile outsiders. At this point in Against Piso—aer Cicero has exposed Piso’s connection with Philodemus in sections 68–72— Nisbet sees an abrupt transition to “a new line of thought,” in which Cicero responds to Piso’s critique of Cicero’s consulship. But I would qualify Nisbet’s reading: poetry and its biographical potential are still at issue, and here a poetry contest breaks out in earnest. e next poem we hear of is Cicero’s own “On His Consulship,” and Cicero asserts tacitly that we this time have poetry worthy of being quoted in this austere and formal context.105 Cicero’s poem is openly autobiographical, and he makes clear that Piso had just quoted it in the oration to which Cicero responds. Piso had said, according to Cicero’s quotation, “It was not antipathy that hurt you, but your poetry” (non illa tibi . . . invidia nocuit, sed versus tui, Pis. 72). One could read this simply as a reference to the possibility that a line in Cicero’s poem had oﬀended Pompey. Cicero’s verse cedant arma togae (“let arms yield to the toga”), by representing Pompey as “arma” and himself as “toga,” would imply not that war should yield to peace but that Cicero’s accomplishments are greater than those of the general. But Piso has raised a parallel issue: the line itself is an example of bad poetry. As John Dugan has recently put it, the line is “of particular political and textual vulnerability” (my emphasis).106 Cicero retorts that exiling a free man for being a bad poet is ludicrous, and he in turn ridicules Piso for being a clumsy literary critic. Unlike the great Homeric scholar Aristarchus, Piso launches a savage attack on the poet instead of excising a bad line (non notam apponas ad malum versum, sed poetam armis persequare, Pis. 73). His understanding of poetics is deficient: Cicero’s cedant arma togae is a metaphor “in the manner of poets” (poetarum more, Pis. 73), so Piso needs to return to Philodemus for a poetry lesson: “Ask that comrade of yours the Greek poet; he will approve of and recognize the genre, and he will not be shocked at your ignorance.”107 Even Piso’s hairiness takes part in the poetry battle. Sexual metaphor that contrasts the strong and “manly” with the weak and “eﬀeminate” permeates the

105. It seems that Pliny, who includes Cicero among those who write “severe” poetry (versi- culi parum severi, Ep. 5.3.5), would concur. 106. Dugan 2005: 62. 107. Quare ex familiari tuo, Graeco illo poeta: probabit genus ipsum et agnoscet neque te nihil sapere mirabitur (Pis. 74).    175 vocabulary of Greek and Latin literary criticism.108 Distinct visual clues— whether in the reader’s imagined view of the poet or in material reality—run along the same lines and thus further determine whether the poet represents manliness or its lack. When Propertius distinguishes Latin love elegy from the more manly genre of epic, he writes, “[L]et Ennius surround his words with a hairy crown” (Ennius hirsuta cingat sua dicta corona, 4.1.61).109 e hirsute Piso ought to represent manly poetics, but here, too, Piso’s fraudulent exterior masks a rotten reality. Just as the appearance of the eﬀeminate Gabinius is more like Piso’s true self as consul, Philodemus’ frivolous and unchaste poetry matches Piso’s aesthetic tastes and ignominious way of life. In addition to Cicero’s use of Gabinius as the inverted “proof” of Piso’s essence and to his assertion that Philodemus’ poetry documents Piso’s actual life, Cicero executes a third strategy to expose Piso. e third body of evidence is provided by Cicero’s eyewitness accounts, some of which achieve heightened credibility through being thrown back rhetorically into Piso’s face. Like the testimony of Philodemus’ poetry, Cicero’s first-person report divulges what his audience cannot see:

Meministine, caenum, cum ad te quinta fere hora cum C. Pisone venissem, nescio quo e gurgustio te prodire involuto capite soleatum, et, cum isto ore foetido taeter- rimam nobis popinam inhalasses, excusatione te uti valetudinis, quod diceres vin- ulentis te quibusdam medicaminibus solere curari? Quam nos causam cum ac- cepissemus—quid enim facere poteramus?—paulisper stetimus in illo ganearum tuarum nidore atque fumo; unde tu nos cum improbissime respondendo, tum turpissime ructando eiecisti. (Pis. 13)

[Do you remember, you scum, when I came to you at almost the fih hour [late morning] with C. Piso, that you were coming out of some sort of dive, head covered, in your slippers? And when you breathed that repulsive bar over us with

108. See, for example, Gold 1993. Fowler (2002: 147) sums up the situation aptly: “As has often been observed, the vocabulary of Greek and Latin literary criticism, because moral and aesthetic evaluation is constantly linked, is permeated by sexual metaphor which contrasts the strong and ‘manly’ with the weak and ‘eﬀeminate.’” For bibliography, see Wyke 1994 and Greene 2000 and 2006. 109. Although hirsutus is oen used metaphorically as a term for shagginess or lack of elegance, its primary meaning (“hairy”) is latent in Propertius’ hirsuta corona. 176      

that fetid mouth of yours, that you used the excuse of your health, saying that you usually looked aer it with certain winelike remedies? And do you remember that when we accepted your explanation—what else could we do—we stood for a while in the stink and fumes of that joint of yours, until your impudent replies and nauseating discharges drove us away.]110

Once again, Cicero claims that he has personally caught Piso drinking during the daytime (an intensely dissolute habit) and at a particularly dreadful locale. When Cicero elsewhere implicates Piso with other feasts and wild drinking parties, he turns his audience’s lack of familiarity with this side of Piso to his advantage: “Who in those days ever saw you sober? . . . In short, who saw you in public at all?”111 Cicero’s eyes have followed Piso to Macedonia, where his investigation was thorough: nos non vestigiis odorantes ingressus tuos, sed totis volutationibus corporis et cubilibus persecuti sumus (“Not only have I followed your arrivals by the scent of your footsteps, but I have tracked down all the wallowings of your body and your every bed,” Pis. 83).112 Later, Cicero will describe Piso escaping his province in the dead of night, shod in Greek sandals and dressed like a slave (nocte intempesta crepidatus veste servili, Pis. 93). Greek sandals were unseemly, particularly for a proconsul. Cicero’s implied source is the local inhabitants, who disclosed that the “Greek-shoed Imperator” (crepidatum imperatorem) had decamped by night. But as Nisbet remarks, the slave costume was “part of the stock-in-trade of escape stories.”113

What does an Epicurean look like? And how does he walk?114 Cicero oﬀers two versions of the physical manifestation of Epicurean proclivities: one that reflects Piso’s inner unmanly self that belies his venerable appearance and one that Piso’s outward form takes in reality while few are watching. If we follow Ci- cero’s lead and take Piso as the Epicurean who hides his Epicurean self under a rough and appropriately male exterior, we discover an Epicurean whose metaphorical gait matches that of the dancing and well-adorned Gabinius. If

110. e first two sentences of this translation are based on Potter 2006: 373 (modified). 111. Quis te illis diebus sobrium . . . quis denique in publico vidit? (Pis. 22). 112. is line may describe the movements of an animal, and the word translated “beds” may denote “lairs.” 113. Nisbet 1961: 164. 114. For essential reading on “Roman invective against the gait,” see Corbeill 2004: 111.    177 appearances matched reality, Piso would look like Philodemus, the “lovely” author of “delicate” or “effeminate” poetry. But there is another sort of Epicurean walk that Cicero creates for Piso. is is his secret manner of walking: shuffling in slippers, with face hidden under his cloak; or creeping away by night in another type of unacceptable footwear; or returning to Rome by stealth (occultus adventus, furtivum iter per Italiam, Pis. 97). us Cicero heaps up his evidence for the contrast between seeming and reality. Logically, they should cancel each other out, but Cicero’s masterful exposition effectively presents the two poles as cumulative evidence. In addition to the stereotypically Epicurean appearance that Piso ought to have, there is the actual appearance that only Cicero and his unnamed informants have witnessed. e former is a dancing girl, and the latter is an escaping criminal. Both images are a far cry from the Epicurean self-presentation apparent in the seated portraits that I discussed at the outset of this chapter. But here, too, Cicero might logically argue for coherence. His polemic against Piso hinges on the claim that Epicureans have a habit of displaying an outward appearance that contradicts not just their innate effeminacy but their inner thoughts. As Cicero asks Torquatus, “Would you make up words and say things you do not think? Or would you change your opinions like clothes—one set at home and another in public? Outside all pretense, with the truth under wraps?”115 If the full text of Damoxenus’ e Foster Brothers and other works of New Comedy had survived, we might find an Epicurus in garments that lampooned or contested the plain cloak represented in the portrait statues. But instead we must be content with late accretions of the symptoms of Epicurus’ illness and a historical Epi- curean who looked frustratingly strong and austere.

115. Verba tu fingas, et ea dicas quae non sentias? Aut etiam, ut vestitum, sic sententiam habeas aliam domesticam, aliam forensem, ut in fronte ostentatio sit, intus veritas occultetur? (Fin. 2.77). Conclusion: The Size of the Sun and the Gender of the Philosopher

Epicurus chopped oﬀ everything that has to do with being a man, everything to do with being the master of a household, with being a citizen, with being a friend. (Epictetus)1

According to Epicurean theory, the sun is “as large as it looks,” or roughly a foot wide.2 is miscalculation attracted a great deal of ridicule in antiquity, but the second-century CE Stoic Cleomedes departed from the routine derision by attributing the error to a compromised masculinity. Having explained how as- tronomers have determined that the earth is spherical and that the sun is larger than the earth (which Cleomedes identifies as the center of the cosmos), Cleomedes writes of Epicurus,

He is the same in his treatment of the first beginnings of all matter, his theory of the telos, and the whole of his ethics, as he is in astronomy, in the topic of sense perception, and in every investigation in general: far blinder than blind mole rats. And no wonder: the discovery of scientific truth is not possible for pleasure-loving people [φιληδόνων ἀνθρώπων], but only for men whose natural inclination is toward virtue [ἀνδρῶν πρὸς ἀρετὴν πεφυκότων] and who value nothing before virtue. (Caelestia 58)

1. Ἐπίκουρος τὰ μὲν ἀνδρὸς πάντ’ἀπεκόψατο καὶ τὰ οἰκοδεσπότου καὶ πολίτου καὶ φίλου . . . (Discourses 2.20.20). e full sentence from which I have taken this quotation is quoted later in this conclusion. 2. Letter to Pythocles 91; DRN 5.564–73. For a contextualization of the Epicurean theory, see Algra 2000.

178  179

Later in the same work, Cleomedes reiterates his contention that good science requires manliness, even a particularly Stoic construction of manliness (as embodied in the Stoic hero Heracles). Addressing Epicurus, whom Philosophy ex- pels, and chasing him back to his carousing with “Leontion, Philainis, and the other hetaerae,” Cleomedes asks, “Don’t you know that Philosophy beckons Heracles and Heraclean men [Ήρακλέα καὶ ἄνδρας Ήρακλείους] and not, by Zeus, effeminates and Pleasure [κιναίδους καὶ ἡδονήν]?” (168). At first hearing, Cleomedes’ gendering of Epicurus may sound gratuitous. A newcomer to anti-Epicurean rhetoric might reasonably assume that Cleomedes is merely tapping into broader Greek and Roman discourses in which the imputation of any kind of effeminacy was a generic insult. In this reading, Cleomedes would be resorting to conventional name-calling simply to add color to his presentation of Epicureanism as shoddy science when he re- galed his astronomy students. But the anti-Epicurean tradition—whether it uses Homeric allusion or censures the Epicureans for a failed masculinity— does not choose its metaphors at random. While an insult may seem arbitrary or superficial at first, further scrutiny reveals a more substantive critique and the significance of the pattern. I hope that my examinations of the Phaeacian tradition, the association of the Garden with women, the virtus/voluptas polar- ity, and the discourses about the appearance and metaphorical clothing of the Epicurean have demonstrated this clearly. Another example of anti-Epicurean discourse that focuses on gender occurs in Diogenes Laertius’ lengthy catalog of unfair abuse hurled at Epicurus. According to Diogenes, the Stoic philosopher Epictetus (mid-first to second century CE) dubbed Epicurus a kinaidologos (κιναιδολόγος, 10.7). Divorced from its irrecoverable context, the insult is at first not entirely transparent. e root of the term (kinaido-) appears in the preceding quotation of Cleomedes, where I translated it as “effeminate.” Technically, a kinaidologos is a poet or per- former of sexual and scatological verses, accompanied by appropriate gestures (Strabo 14.1.41), so Epictetus seems to be equating Epicurus’ teachings with an obscene and unmanly dance that Roman sources associate with the East. Or perhaps the Stoic’s readers would have understood the insult as a sardonic re- coining of the term kinaidologos with another literal sense: “a professor of de- viance” or a “cinaedus-expert” (cinaedus being a Latin version of kinaidos that is more detached from the sense of “dancer”). Both connotations may be operative at once. As Craig Williams (2010: 197) has written of the word cinaedus in Roman discourse, “In a transferred sense it denotes a man who is not a dancer 180       but who displays the salient characteristics of a[n Asiatic] cinaedus-dancer; he is a gender-deviant, a ‘non-man’ who has broken the rules of masculine comportment.” e only other use of the term kinaidologos as a term of abuse with no literal connections to poetry or dancing is ascribed to other Stoics who lev- eled the charge against Arcesilaus, another philosopher who was associated with pleasure. According to these Stoic followers of Ariston of Chios, Arcesi- laus was a “corrupter of youth and a kinaidologos” (φθορέα τῶν νέων καὶ κιναι- δολόγον, Diog. Laert. 4.40). In the same passage, Diogenes lists Arcesilaus’ male and female lovers and refers to him as “another Aristippus,” Aristippus being the legendary founder of the hedonist Cyreniac school of philosophy. If we consider the single word kinaidologos in isolation, Epictetus’ name- calling may sound like a conventional way to accuse Epicurus merely of being devoted to sexual pleasures. But when we turn to the extant texts of Epictetus, the point of his engagement with the traditional feminizing of the Epicureans becomes clear. In the Discourses, Epictetus compares Epicurus to Cybele’s eunuch priests, the Galli, and uses castration as a metaphor for the Epicurean outlook. e context is Epictetus’ critique of Epicurus’ denial that there is a “natural community between people” (τὴν φυσικὴν κοινωνίαν ἀνθρώποις πρὸς ἀλλήλους), where Epictetus argues that human concern for others exists among Epicureans despite Epicurus’ teachings (Discourses 2.20.6). For Epicte- tus, the very fact that Epicurus wrote late into the night so that others might read his philosophy represents a contradiction. Epictetus writes,

οὐ τοίνυν οὐδ’ ἄνθρωπον οἷόν τε παντελῶς ἀπολέσαι τὰς κινήσεις τὰς ἀνθρωπικὰς καὶ οἱ ἀποκοπτόμενοι τάς γε προθυμίας τὰς τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀποκόψασθαι οὐ δύνανται. οὕτως καὶ Έπίκουρος τὰ μὲν ἀνδρὸς πάντ’ ἀπεκόψατο καὶ τὰ οἰκοδεσπότου καὶ πολίτου καὶ φίλου, τὰς δὲ προθυμίας τὰς ἀνθρωπικὰς οὐκ ἀπεκόψατο·3

[It is not possible for a person to destroy human inclinations totally, and even those who mutilate themselves are not able to mutilate men’s natural aﬀections. us even Epicurus—though he chopped oﬀ everything that has to do with be-

3. Epictetus, Discourses 2.20.20. Epictetus’ verb for “chop oﬀ” is used elsewhere in reference to eunuchs and self-castration (Philo 1.89, LXX De.23.1; Lucian, Eunuch 8; Epistle to the Galacians 5.12). Epictetus’ version of Stoicism was heavily indebted to the early Greek Stoic Chrysippus, and he may have taken inspiration from a comparison of Epicureans with eunuchs made by Chrysippus. But if so, the source is lost.  181

ing a man, everything to do with being the master of a household, with being a citizen, with being a friend—did not chop oﬀ human aﬀections.]

What does gendered discourse about the Epicureans have to do with Epicurean philosophy? Epictetus could not have put it more plainly. Having oﬀered some caricatures of Epicurean thought, he adds, sarcastically, “Well done, philosopher! Go on, convince the youth, so we have many more who think and talk like you. By such doctrines as these, our well-governed states have flourished!” (Discourses 2.2.26). en follow some historical examples of events that could not have happened if Epicurus had been in control: there would have been no Sparta, no Athens. No one would have sacrificed his life at ermopylae, and no one would have had the courage to strategize as the Persians approached. As I demonstrated in chapter 4, the word voluptas (“pleasure”) alone was enough to feminize an Epicurean in Roman culture. But there was more to the critique than censure of Epicurean food and sex. Rather, for the harsh critics of the Garden, the Epicurean advocacy of the pleasant life belonged to a nexus of traits that diminished the Epicurean’s masculinity. Allusions to Epicurean unmanliness oen appear in frequent proximity to censure of Epicurean withdrawal from politics. In some sources, hostile discourse about Epicurean pleasure is intermingled with a critique of an Epicurean renunciation of political engagement. We meet the seamless whole in the Pro Sestio, when Cicero en- larges on the virtus/voluptas jingle I described in chapter 4. ere Cicero paints a radical divide between people with Epicurean leanings and people worthy of admiration: “My entire oration is on the side of virtus, not indolence; on the side of dignity, not voluptas; on the side of those who believe they were born for their country, for their compatriots, for esteem, for glory; not for sleep, for feasts, and for gratification” (Sest. 66.138). e accusation of unmanliness is also the underlying theme of Plutarch’s polemic in “Is Live Unknown a Wise Precept?” a screed that uses the image of the darkened Garden to trounce any Epicurean claim on virtue. Although it is best known from Plutarch’s reply rather than from any Epicurean texts, the in- junction to “Live unknown” is likely to have been an authentic Epicurean adage (though not necessarily traceable to Epicurus himself).4 But instead of taking “Live unknown” as the philosopher’s renunciation of worldly glory, wealth, and power, Plutarch equates fame with light and equates the lack of concern for

4. See Roskam 2007a and 2007b. 182       fame with a desire to practice vice in the darkness: “But how could the very idea not be evil: Live unknown as though you were a tomb-robber?” (De lat. 1128c). Although he ridicules Epicurus for having nonetheless sought fame while his words repudiated it, Plutarch depicts Epicurus’ teachings as a call to live in disgraceful darkness, and he equates the removal of public recognition from life to the removal of light from a banquet—a darkening that encourages the secret pursuit of every pleasure (1129a–b). Here as elsewhere, ersatz conversation, intermingled with hostile quotation of apparent texts of Epicurus (now lost), is Plutarch’s trademark. us Epicurus responds to Plutarch’s assertions about the exhortation to “Live unknown,” πάνυ μὲν οἆν, ἂν μεθ’ Ήδείας βιοῦν μέλλω τῆς ἑταίρας καὶ Λεοντίῳ συγκαταζῆν καί ‘τῷ καλῷ προσπτύειν’ καὶ τἀγαθόν ‘ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ γαργαλισμοῖς’ τίθεσθαι· ταῦτα δεῖται σκότους τὰ τέλη, ταῦτα νυκτός, ἐπὶ ταῦτα τὴν λήθην καὶ τὴν ἄγνοιαν (“Certainly, if I mean to live with the hetaera Hedeia and cohabitate with Leontion and ‘spit’ on the good and place the noble in ‘flesh and titillations,’ these rites require darkness, these require night; for these things you need concealment and oblivion,” De lat. 1129b). At times, Plutarch brings the emasculating potential of the Garden more clearly to the fore, as in the macaronic “quotation” of Epicurus I discussed in chapter 2: “‘Brave boxers we are not,’ nor orators, nor leaders of the people, nor magistrates, ‘but always dear to us is the banquet’ and ‘every pleasing stirring of the flesh that is sent up to give some pleasure and delight to the mind.’”5 In a similar vein, in “Is Live Unknown a Wise Precept?” Plutarch portrays Epicureanism as the enemy of great men: its teaching would have discouraged Epameinondas the general, Lycurgus the lawmaker, and rasybulus the tyrant slayer (1128f). Lack of action (ἀπραξία) causes mold to grow over a man’s character (ἦθος ἀνδρός, 1129d). For Plutarch, or at least for the “Plutarch” persona of this essay, the Epicurean life of withdrawal is comparable to shaded pools of water. In another cultural context, such an image might connote a serene garden and the contemplative life, but the shady pools are here sites of putrefaction and decay:

ἡσυχία δὲ κωφὴ καὶ βίος ἑδραῖος ἐπὶ σχολῆς ἀποκείμενος οὐ μόνον σώματα ἀλλὰ καὶ ψυχὰς μαραίνει· καὶ καθάπερ τὰ λανθάνοντα τῶν ὑδάτων τῷ περισκιάζεσθαι καὶ καθῆσθαι μὴ ἀπορρέοντα σήπεται, οὕτω τῶν ἀκινήτων

5. ‘οὐ γὰρ πυγμάχοι εἰμὲν ἀμύμονες’ οὐδὲ ῥήτορες οὐδὲ προστάται δήμων οὐδ’ ἄρχοντες, ‘ἀεὶ δ’ ἡμῖν δαίς τε φίλη’ καὶ πᾶσα διὰ σαρκὸς ἐπιτερπὴς κίνησις ἐφ’ ἡδονήν τινα καὶ χαρὰν ψυχῆς ἀναπεμπομένη (Plutarch, Non posse 1087b).  183

βίων, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἄν τι χρήσιμον ἔχωσι, μὴ ἀπορρεόντων μηδὲ πινομένων φθείρονται καὶ ἀπογηράσκουσιν αἱ σύμφυτοι δυνάμεις. (1129d)

[Mute quietude and a sedentary life buried away in leisure weaken not only the body but also the spirit. And just as unknown pools of water, being shaded and stagnant, putrefy when they are stopped up, so it is, it seems, with unknown, in- active lives. If they have anything good, being stopped up and not drunk from, their innate strengths decay and grow old.]

Another indication that Plutarch’s Garden is insalubriously dark appears in his description of intellectual and spiritual joys: such joys provide a bright light that shines on everyone except the cloistered Epicureans (Non posse 1098c). In- deed, for Plutarch, life itself is light, while the Epicurean death is darkness (De lat. 1130a). On the Fact at Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible ends with censure of the Epicurean belief that life ends with death, followed by a lyrical description of the immortal soul that “blazes with the sun and the moon into sentient fire” (Non posse 1107b). us, in On the Fact at Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible, as a recent critic puts it, “we rise from swine to eschatological light.”6 e best manipulators of anti-Epicurean discourses occasionally express a self-conscious awareness that they are making use of distorted stereotypes. In anti-Epicurean screeds as well as in the less scathing critiques, a frequent ploy is to impugn an Epicurean’s character or unleash a flood of abuse while simul- taneously implying that the attack is based on a cliché the writer is above accepting. e nod to fairness is then undermined by an obligatory acknowledgment that the bad reputation is understandable or even well deserved. us Cicero, in the midst of his excoriation of L. Calpurnius Piso, exploits the former consul’s allegedly shady Epicurean connections and sarcastically calls him “our Epicurus” but then corrects himself by adding the qualification “from the pigsty, not the school.” Plutarch’s eon indulges in a similar tactic when he follows his extended catalog of Epicurean vices with a concession to historical accuracy:

εἴ γε μὴν τὸ εὐδοξεῖν ἡδύ, τὸ ἀδοξεῖν δήπου λυπηρόν ἀδοξότερον δ’ ἀφιλίας ἀπραξίας ἀθεότητος ἡδυπαθείας ὀλιγωρίας οὐθέν ἐστι. ταῦτα δὲ πάντες

6. Brenk 2000: 48. 184      

ἄνθρωποι πλὴν αὐτῶν ἐκείνων τῇ αἱρέσει προσεῖναι νομίζουσιν. ‘ἀδίκως’ φήσει τις. ἀλλὰ τὴν δόξαν οὐ τὴν ἀλήθειαν σκοποῦμεν. (Non posse 1100c–d)

[If renown is pleasant, disgrace is painful; and nothing is more disgraceful than lack of friends, idleness, irreligion, hedonism, or being regarded with contempt. All people except the Epicureans themselves consider these attributes to belong to their sect. “Unfairly,” someone might say. But we are considering reputation, not truth.]

e reader is le with the image of the reputation. It is essential to recognize here that Plutarch’s anticipation of an objection is a traditional oratorical de- vice. Both Cicero and Plutarch are putting to good use the rhetorical figure of ante occupatio or procatalepsis, by which a speaker identifies and responds to a counterpoint before the opponent has the chance to make it. e concession that the stereotype may be overdrawn establishes Plutarch’s credibility and thus results in a stronger case. Seneca makes a similar move in the passage quoted as the epigraph to the introduction of this book: “I shall not say what most of our own [Stoics] say, that the sect of Epicurus is the instructress of indecencies. But I do say this: it has a bad reputation; it is notorious. ‘But that is unfair,’ someone might protest. But how would an outsider know? Its very facade provides opportunity for gossip and inspires wicked expectation. It is like a man in a dress . . .” (De vita beata 13). In my view, such acknowledgments should not be taken as a straightforward defense of the Garden. Some of the most virulent anti-Epi- curean discourse may ostensibly be disowned by its purveyors, but it is pur- veyed nonetheless.7 Having conceded that the defamation of the Epicureans may be unjust, eon resumes his assessment with another inventory, which he prefaces with the familiar rhetorical figure of speech known as paralipsis (παράλειψις), or praeteritio, by which one raises an issue—usually a negative one—while pre- tending not to:

καὶ βιβλία μὲν μὴ λέγωμεν μηδὲ ψηφίσματα βλάσφημα πόλεων, ὅσα γέγραπται πρὸς αὐτούς (φιλαπεχθῆμον γάρ). εἰ δὲ χρησμοὶ καὶ μαντικὴ καὶ θεῶν πρόνοια

7. is is one of the few points on which I disagree with the perceptive readings of Cicero’s In Pisonem by Miriam Griﬃn (1989 and 2001), who writes that Cicero “shows Epicureanism in a good light” (2001: 96). Maslowski (1974) interprets In Pisonem as very favorably inclined toward the Garden.  185

καὶ γονέων πρὸς ἔκγονα στοργὴ καὶ ἀγάπησις καὶ πολιτεία καὶ ἡγεμονία καὶ τὸ ἄρχειν ἔνδοξόν ἐστι καὶ εὐκλεές, οὕτως ἀνάγκη τοὺς λέγοντας, ὡς οὐ δεῖσῴζειν τοὺς Έλληνας ἀλλ’ ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν ἀβλαβῶς τῇ γαστρὶ καὶ κεχαρισμένως, ἀδοξεῖν καὶ κακοὺς νομίζεσθαι, νομιζομένους δὲ τοιούτους ἀνιᾶσθαι καὶ ζῆν ἀτερπῶς, εἴ γε δὴ τὸ καλὸν ἡδὺ καὶ τὴν εὐδοξίαν ἡγοῦνται. (Non Posse 1086d)

[Let us not mention the books or the brutal decrees of cities that have been written against them (that would be quarrelsome of us). But if oracles, and divination, and the gods’ providence, and the love and aﬀection of parent for child, and citizenship, and leadership, and holding oﬃce are honorable and estimable, it follows that those who say that it is “not necessary to save the Greeks, but to eat and drink harmlessly and gratifyingly to the belly” will be infamous and will be regarded as bad people; and being so regarded, it follows that they will be tormented and will live a disagreeable life, if they actually do consider the good and good reputation to be pleasant.]

To return to Cleomedes’ harnessing of anti-Epicurean discourse, although most of his text is a patient exposition of Stoic astronomy, Cleomedes also heaps ridicule on Epicurus’ use of Greek. I will not argue for an unbroken trajectory in which a joke about Epicurean speech in New Comedy grows—several centuries later—into obscene censure in Cleomedes. Yet it is clear that outsider scrutiny of peculiar ways of speaking had gained momentum before Cleomedes savaged Epicurean language. Cleomedes did not simply take up where Damoxenus’ “Epicurean” cook le oﬀ. Cicero and Plutarch complain that Epicurus’ language is unclear and idiosyncratic, but they seldom protest directly against Epicurean neologisms or circumlocutions. To skewer Epicurean language, Plutarch follows the method of Damoxenus: he simply quotes it. To outsiders, there was something obviously funny about a “consolidation” of pleasures (Damoxenus) and about circumlocutions like “every pleasing stirring of the flesh” (πᾶσα διὰ σαρκὸς ἐπιτερπὴς κίνησις, Plutarch, Non posse 1087b). Aelius eon, a first-century CE teacher of grammar and rhetoric, identified the problem as an unseemly use of lyrical me- ters that resembled the florid style of “the so-called Asiatic orators.” In his advice to other teachers on how to teach composition, he writes,

One should show concern for the arrangement of the words, teaching all the ways students will avoid composing badly, especially [how to avoid] metrical 186      

and rhythmical style, like most of the writings of the orator Hegesias and the other so-called Asian orators, and some of the writings of Epicurus—the sort of thing he writes somewhere [που] to Idomeneus: “Oh, you who have since youth thought all my impressions sweet” [ὦ πάντα τἀμὰ κινήματα τερπνὰ νομίσας ἐκ νέου]—and those that circulate as supposedly his (though to this day I do not find them anywhere in his collected works): “Tell me, Polyaeus, how may I rejoice, how may I be delighted, how may there be great joy for me?” [λέγε δή μοι, Πολύαινε, συναπέριμεν μεγάλη χαρὰ γένηται. ὡς χαρὰ, ὡς τέρψωμαι;].8

Some circumlocutions and exuberant language attributed to Epicurus may be parodies, as eon apparently suspects. He is not sure where he read the line to Idomeneus, and he has never found a source for the letter to Polyaeus. But even an Epicurean-friendly reader (who understands that Epicurus wants a precise description of the nature of the divine) will see why Epicurus’ writing “the blessed and immortal” instead of “god” could be construed as a comically odd use of language. e text of the examples quoted by eon is apparently corrupt, so no particular lyric meter can be identified, but the extravagance of the language attributed to Epicurus is clear.9 What eon does not mention, however, is that the “so-called Asian orators” were labeled “eﬀeminate” by writers who strove for a style, oen identified as “Attic,” that was leaner and reputedly purer (linguistically speaking). Like eon, Dionysius of Halicarnassus singles out Hegesias’ style as particularly of- fensive. But Dionysius makes plain that Hegesias crosses a gender line. Con- trasting Homer’s description of Achilles’ mistreatment of Hector’s body (Iliad 22.395–411) with Hegesias’ undignified description of a horrific incident in Alexander’s massacre of the inhabitants of Gaza, Dionysius asserts that Homer approaches his subject as sensible and intelligent men would, whereas Hegesias tells it “the way it would be told by women and eﬀeminates [“broken people”]— and even they would be talking that way in jest” (ὑπὸ γυναικῶν ἢ κατεαγότων ἀνθρώπων λέγοιτ’ ἂν καὶ οὐδὲ τούτων μετὰ σπουδῆς, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ χλευασμῷ καὶ καταγέλωτι, On Literary Composition 18).

8. Translation based on Kennedy 2003: 13–14. Kennedy translates a text of the Progymnas- mata that has been reconstructed from an Armenian version and that improves on the Greek but may still be corrupt. See Kennedy 2003: 14 n. 60. 9. Kennedy 2003: 14 n. 60. eon may mean simply that Epicurus was sometimes too melodic, rather than that his letters were metrical. at Asiatic oratory was generally melodi- ous is implied by Cicero (Brutus 325).  187

Cicero himself aspired to an Attic style that surpassed what he regarded as the pseudo-Atticism of his oratorical rivals, including his frequent adversary Calvus. Nevertheless, Cicero’s opponents sometimes branded him as an “Asianist” (a label that no orator claimed for himself, apparently). Cicero de- fended his own style as more virile, healthy, and robust than that of Calvus, but his great admirer Quintilian reports that even his own contemporaries dared to attack him for being, among other things, bombastic, Asiatic, sensu- ous, extravagant “and (an outrageous accusation!) almost effeminate [soft]” (ac paene, quod procul absit, viro molliorem, Quintilian 12.10.12).10 If the orator Sisenna was an Epicurean, as some have supposed, a hint of Epicurean involvement in the Asianist/Atticist discourse may survive in Cicero’s label- ing of Sisenna as Asianist.11 Philodemus, however, writes against Asianism (Rhetoric 4.1). e earlier commentaries on Epicurean language ill prepare us for Cleomedes’ attack, in which Epicurus is uglier than the paradigmatically ugly ersites:

῞Ωστε πολὺ ἄν τις δικαιότερόν μοι ἐδόκει πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰπεῖν Θερσῖτ’ ἀκριτόμυθε, λιγύς περ ἐὼν ἀγορητής, Ίσχεο, οὐδὲ γὰρ λιγὺν ἔγωγε τοῦτον ἂν τὸν Θερσίτην, καθάπερ Όδυσσεὺς ἐκεῖνον, εἴποιμι. Έπεί γε πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν αὐτῷ ποικίλως διεφθορότα ἐστί, σαρκὸς εὐσταθῆ κατα- στήματα λέγοντι καὶ τὰ περὶ ταύτης πιστὰ ἐλπίσματα καὶ λίπασμα ὀφθαλμῶν τὸ δάκρυον ὀνομάζοντι καὶ ἱερὰ ἀνακραυγάσματα καὶ γαργαλισμοὺς σώματος καὶ ληκήματα καὶ ἄλλας τοιαύτας κακὰς ἄτας ὧν τὰ μὲν ἐκ χαμαιτυπείων ἄν τις εἶναι φήσειε, τὰ δὲ ὅμοια τοῖς λεγομένοις ἐν τοῖς Δημητρίοις ὑπὸ τῶν Θεσμοφοριαζουσῶν γυναικῶν, τὰ δὲ ἀπὸ μέσης τῆς προσευχῆς καὶ τῶν ἐπ’ αὐλαῖς προσαιτούντων, Ίουδαϊκά τινα καὶ παρακεχαραγμένα καὶ κατὰ πολὺ τῶν ἑρπετῶν ταπεινότερα.

[at is why I would believe it to be quite wrong for someone to say to him: “Babbling ersites, clear orator though you are, hold oﬀ!” For I would not also call this ersites “clear,” as Odysseus does the Homeric one, when on top of everything else his mode of expression is also elaborately corrupt. He speaks of

10. Other emasculating adjectives used of Cicero were enervis, fractus, and elumbis (Tacitus, Dial. or. 18.4–5). 11. Rawson 1979: 384. 188      

“tranquil conditions of flesh” and “the confident expectations regarding it” and describes a tear as a “glistening of the eyes,” and speaks of “sacred ululations” and “titillations of the body” and “debaucheries” and other such dreadful horrors. Some of these expressions might be said to have brothels as their source, others to resemble the language of women celebrating the rites of Demeter at the esmorphoria, still others to come from the synagogue and its suppli- ants—debased Jew talk, far lower than the reptiles!]12

us Cleomedes integrates some familiar, gendered ways of talking about Epi- curus with a hostile commentary on his use of language. is integration is similar to Cleomedes’ attribution of the Epicureans’ allegedly poor grasp of science to their lack of manliness.

I have presented many stereotyptes of Epicureans, from the Epicurean cook in Damoxenus’ comedy to the Epicurean as the castrated priest of Cybele. Can a real Epicurean be discovered among these texts? e spoof of Epicurean language in Damoxenus’ e Foster Brothers clearly reflects Epicurean usage, and his reference to Epicurean communal dinners is also amply confirmed by Diog - enes Laertius and many other sources. But what about Epicurean discourse that passes judgment on the gender and sex of Epicureans? When I examined the sometimes clear, sometimes miragelike vision of women in the Garden (in chapter 3), I chose not to read ancient references to Epicurean hetaerae as unequivocal proof that many women studied philosophy in the Garden. I could go further and interpret the story of Leontion as a metaphorical use of woman as a sign for the Epicurean male character. Seneca explains why a man in a dress is a misleading emblem for the Garden, and perhaps he would have understood Leontion herself as an equally appalling and equally misrepresentative image. In my reading, emista, Leontion, and the others oen serve as metaphors for the unmanly male philosopher, but historical reality mingles with the stereotypes. My sense is that the outside world seized on the stories of Epicurean women largely because it suspected that there was something fundamentally womanish—and therefore unmanly—about the Garden itself. is would explain why the scattered references to other philos-

12. Translation by Bowen and Todd (2004: 125), quoted by permission. Cleomedes quotes Il- iad 2.246–47. On Cleomedes’ horrific anti-Semitism, see Johnson 2004 and Gruen 1998.  189 ophizing women in antiquity do not appear in contexts where the schools to which they adhered appear in a negative light.13 Male Epicureans were notorious for withdrawing to the Garden in the company of women, and for their supposed subversion of conventional notions of what it means to be a Greek (or a Roman) and a man. Lucretius certainly condemns political ambition: for him, the true Sisyphus is a grasping politician who has created his own hell on earth (DRN 3.995–97). e theme surfaces twice elsewhere in the De rerum natura. Avarice and “blind craving for oﬃce” are lifetime wounds (vulnera vitae, DRN 3.63) that result from the fear of death.14 Following Epicurus, Lucretius writes that political power causes pain and brings no security (DRN 5.1120–35; Epicurus, Kyriae Doxai 7). A result of the nature of most of the ancient sources (which take notice of Epicureans who were visible in public spheres) is that they tell us more about the actions of Epicureans who engaged in politics and government than they do about Epicureans who abstained. Putting the scarcity of information on the ways early Epicureans conducted their lives in the worst possible light, Cicero claims that it is impossible to remember any man who lived for pleasure: such men simply sink into oblivion (Fin. 2.63, 67). But in Cicero’s own era, quietism was not the only way an Epicurean might respond to social and political up- heaval or disaster. In a renowned article of 1941, Momigliano connected Epi- curean values with Cassius’ decision to join the conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar (and thus free Rome from tyranny); but in 53 BCE, Cicero had portrayed Caesar’s camp as “a hotbed of Epicureanism.”15 It would be enlightening to have more information about Atticus, whose case is unclear.16 Cornelius Nepos’ Life of Atticus would be attractive as a testimony to the specifically Epi- curean demeanor and way of life of Cicero’s apparently irenic friend, but it is hard to see if Nepos meant to imply a connection, as he never mentions Epi- cureanism in his Life of Atticus. Cicero connects Atticus’ quietism with an Epi- curean outlook but refrains from commenting on any lack of virtus he might discern in his friend.

13. On attitudes toward women philosophers in other schools, see Le Dœff 1989: 102. 14. “[B]lind craving for office” is Bailey’s translation of honorum caeca cupido (Bailey 1947: 305). 15. Cicero Fam. 15.16, characterized thus by Griffin (1989: 31). On the political activities of Epicureans in the late republic, see also Asmis 2002 and Benferhat 2005. 16. For a pessimistic view of Atticus’ Epicureanism, see Perlwitz 1992: 90–97, where Atticus is portrayed as immoderately committed to moneymaking. 190      

Ironically, one of the best candidates for an Epicurean who integrated his commitment to serious Epicurean values with his political actions and comportment is the man Cicero portrays as a gross example of the Epicurean who comes “from the pigsty, not the school.” According to Cicero’s report, Piso spurned the idea that he should have a triumph, perhaps the quintessential display of manly success (negavit se triumphi cupidum umquam fuisse, Pis. 56).17 Cicero’s explanation is that had Piso made a request, the senate would not have granted a triumph to so greedy and detested a governor. But a trace of an ethical position taken by Piso may be present in Cicero’s claim that Piso had labeled men who desired triumphs as “amateurs,” or idiotae, a word that may have the sense of “philosophically ignorant” (Pis. 60).18 As Cicero says, with derision, “You have heard, Conscript Fathers, the voice of a philosopher” (at audistis, pa- tres conscriptis, philosophi vocem, Pis. 56). Although Cicero treats them as spe- cious excuses, Cicero himself hypothesizes (mockingly) that Piso would give philosophical reasons for not wanting a triumph. e conjectured “philosophical” positions that Cicero sketches are not as fallacious as Cicero means them to be, and as Miriam Griffin has written, “it is not implausible that Piso himself would have said that he placed a higher value on quies than gloria (Lucr. II.37ff.) or political power (Lucr. V.1127).”19 In fact, Griffin finds traces of Epi- curean ethics—such as a belief in clemency, commitment to friends, and avoidance of strife—throughout the portraits of Piso offered by both Cicero and the historian Cassius Dio.20 We might also take Piso’s revulsion at the execution of the Cataline conspirators as a sign of his Epicurean outlook. Cicero, in fact, stresses that Piso objected to the execution on moral grounds: Piso had said “that he has always been inclined toward mercy” (se semper misericordem fuisse, Red. sen. 17). In contrast, Cicero presents Gabinius’ opinion as a consti- tutional point: Gabinius was “displeased” by “the punishment of untried citizens” (Red. sen. 13). Perhaps Piso took an Epicurean approach to political action that was shaped in part by Philodemus, who dedicated to Piso his essay On the Good

17. e display of manly courage and achievement was a constitutive aspect of the Roman triumph, but its pageantry could border dangerously on the luxurious. See Beard 2007, but note that Beard argues also that the scholarly consensus that the trappings of the triumph included a phallus hung below the triumphal chariot (based on Pliny, HN 28.39) is incorrect. 18. Griffin 2001: 91. 19. Griffin 1989: 36. 20. Griffin 2001: 88–91.  191

King according to Homer. If the essay dates to Piso’s youth as Elizabeth Asmis has suggested, Philodemus may have expected it to be formative.21 According to the interpretation of Philodemus, Homer presented the Phaeacian king Alci- nous as an ideal ruler: just, wise, and desirous of peace. e king’s mildness is an attribute that Diogenes Laertius saw in Epicurus, whom he praised for his ἡμερότης (“gentleness”).22 At some point in the history of biographical reports on Epicurus, some people seem to have considered the gentleness of Epicurus to belong not to historical reality but to a habit of idealization. As we read in Sententiae Vaticinae 36, Ό Έπικούρου βίος τοῖς τῶν ἄλλων συγκρινόμενος ἕνεκεν ἡμερότητος καὶ αὐταρκείας μῦθος ἂν νομισθείη (“e life of Epicurus, when compared to the lives of others, might—because of its gentleness and self- sufficiency—be thought to be a fiction”). It is difficult to ascertain whether Epicurean self-fashioning encompassed a deliberate renunciation of conduct or values that both Epicureans and others saw as manly. Cicero and Plutarch presented Epicurean quietism as a womanish trait. Less obliquely, Epictetus described it as metaphorical castration. Would an Epicurean man respond in the way Philodemus did to the Phaea- cian/Epicurean tradition, turning the insult into a validation of the way he chose to differ from other points of view? Cassius’ reclaiming of virtus for the Epicureans (or at least for himself and Pansa) suggests that his view was that a good Epicurean man was also a good Roman man according to the dominant construction of masculinity, but perhaps he meant to stretch the concept of manliness.23 As a reader who is well disposed toward the Garden, I would like to find firm evidence for an unequivocal Epicurean response to anti-Epicurean discourse that acknowledges that Epicureanism questioned the value of the more dominant constructions of masculinity. Instead, I find evidence of a response that leaves its intentions unclear. As Philodemus’ references to women in On Frank Speech reveal, Epicurean teachers (whom the text seems to present as male) were expected to learn how to deal adroitly with female students. But if Leontion, emista, and Batis (or even Nikidion, Hedeia, and the others) played important roles in the early Garden, they may have been excised from its

21. Asmis (1991: 24) points out that the recommendation to be “like Telemachus” would fit well with a date during Piso’s youth. 22. Diog. Laert. 10.10. 23. I examine Cassius’ defense of Epicureanism in chapter 4. On Cassius’ allegiance to Epi- curus, see Cicero, Ad fam. 15.19, as well as commentary by Momigliano (1941), FitzGibbon (2008), and Sedley (1997). 192       histories by Philodemus (whose specialty as a researcher seems to have been in Epicurean biography and historiography).24 Perhaps the women’s contributions had been occluded over time, well before Philodemus began his studies. But there is one indication that Philodemus or his teachers dealt the final blow or were at least uneasy with the presence of women in the early Garden.25 Philode- mus frequently appeals to Epicurean authority, but for him, the canonical texts include not just those of Epicurus himself but those of a group he calls οἱ ἄνδρες (“the men”): Epicurus, Metrodorus, Hermarchus, and Polyaenus.26 ese three companions to Epicurus are well known from the pages of Cicero, Diogenes Laertius, Plutarch, and others, but it was only the discovery of the papyri of Philodemus that revealed a habit of referring to four founding fathers as “the men.” It is possible that the convention began earlier, but my suspicion is that Philodemus’ references to the founders as “the men” and his choice of a canonical four are a case of an invention of tradition. To me, it seems likely that Philodemus elevated Polyaenus’ status, moving him up the ranks to join the well-established Metrodorus and Hermarchus.27 Polyaenus and his son are mentioned, along with Hermarchus and Metrodorus and his children, in Diog - enes Laertius’ will of Epicurus, which stipulates that the Epicureans should continue Epicurus’ tradition of celebrating a day for his brothers in the month of Poseideon and a day for Polyaenus in Metageitnion. But Polyaenus receives little attention elsewhere in Diogenes Laertius’ Life of Epicurus. Nor is there evidence that a seat was reserved for Polyaenus among the statues of Epicurus, Hermarchus, and Metrodorus. Most telling, in my judgment, is Diogenes Laer- tius’ treatment of Polyaenus in his survey of early Epicureans and their writings. ere we have several lines about Metrodorus’ life and character (the

24. Citing several sources in addition to the reference to a work of Philodemus by Diogenes Laertius (10.3), Sedley (1989: 105) proposes that Philodemus’ original scholarship had this focus. 25. But for the possibility that Philodemus’ love poetry aﬃrms that women can be Epicurean philosophers, see Sider 1987: 311–23, especially 319. 26. In an article that also lists fragments where Philodemus refers to “the leaders” or “the teachers,” Longo Auricchio (1978) catalogs seventeen papyrus fragments in which Epicurean authorities are referred to as “the men.” See also Sedley 1989: 105–6 and Sedley’s references to “the Great Men” (1989: 106) and “the infallible four” (1998: 67). 27. Seneca may be alluding to this tradition when he writes that Polyaenus, Hermarchus, and Metrodorus became magnos viros through their association with Epicurus (Epistles 6.6).  193 goodness of which is supported by three citations of works by Epicurus), followed by a list of twelve works of Metrodorus. We also have a few sentences about Hermarchus, along with a list of four works. Between Metrodorus and Hermarchus, Diogenes inserts the single sentence “And then there was Polyaenus, son of Athenodorus of Lampsacus, a just and kindly man, as the circle of Philodemus says”(ἦν καὶ Πολύαινος Άθηνοδώρου Λαμψακηνός, ἐπιεικὴς καὶ φιλικός, ὡς οἱ περὶ Φιλόδημόν φασι, Diog. Laert. 10.24). e brevity of this notice in particular and the specific reference to Philodemus lead me to suspect that the canonization of four founders as “the men” is Philodemus’ own contribution or perhaps that of his teacher. Even if Polyaenus was indeed considered early on to be one of four original teachers, Philodemus’ reference to “the men” (rather than, say, “the four” or “the leaders”) seems pointed.28 While outsiders were carping about women in the Garden or pitting voluptas against virtus, this new tradition of οἱ ἄνδρες, or “the founding fathers,” asserted its manliness. Now that references to “the men” have appeared in the Herculaneum papyri, they stand out in Plutarch’s treatments of Epicureanism.29 The interlocutors in On the Fact That Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible refer archly to “the point made at the start of the discussion against the men” (τοὺς ἄνδρας, 1087a). They add, “Let us avenge the philosophers by punish- ing the men” (τοὺς ἄνδρας, 1087b); “You seem to hop on the mens’ belly” (εἰς τὴν γαστέρα τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, 1087b); “You are depriving the men of life itself if you are not going to leave them a pleasant life” (τοὺς ἄνδρας, 1087b); “Don’t you think that the men do well to begin with the body?” (οἱ ἄνδρες, 1088d). Later, Plutarch exclaims, “Oh, the great pleasure and blessedness of the men, which they enjoy while rejoicing in suffering no hardship, suffering, or pain” (φεῦ τῆς μεγάλης ἡδονῆς τῶν ἀνδρῶν καὶ μακαριότητος, ἣν καρποῦνται χαίροντες ἐπὶ τῷ μὴ κακοπαθεῖν μηδὲ λυπεῖσθαι μηδ’ ἀλγεῖν, 1091b). The Loeb translators Einarson and DeLacy recognized the usage as distinctive and captured Plutarch’s sardonic tone by translating οἱ ἄνδρες as “these gentle-

28. For Lucretius, of course, there was only one discoverer of the truth, Epicurus himself. For the tradition that there were four founders, Longo Aurrichio also cites Alciphron’s naming of all four philosophers in the letter from “Leontion to Lamia” (17.9) and cites Virgil’s Ciris (14–15): si me iam summa Sapientia pangeret arce / quattuor antiquis heredibus edita consors. 29. Seneca also seems to mimic Epicurean usage when he repeatedly refers to them as boni viri. 194       men.”30 It is difficult to parse Plutarch precisely. He is clearly making fun of Epicurean language. I suspect that the lack of manliness on the part of these “men” is part of the joke. ere are many ways to invent the Epicurean: the gourmand, the glutton, the sensualist, the criminal, the invalid, the thinking hetaera, the contagious sufferer of horrific maladies, or the man with the comically idiosyncratic or of- fensively effeminate vocabulary. From a more affirmative point of view, there is the philosopher with “unsurpassed goodwill toward all people,” whose friends “outnumbered the populations of whole cities” (Diog. Laert. 10.9). Epicurean texts demonstrate a persistent concern with correcting the common misrepre- sentations, with affirming some aspects, and with projecting an idealized image. e tradition of imitating and updating Epicurus’ catalog of non-Epi- curean pleasures in the Letter to Menoeceus bears this out, as does Lucretius’ rejection of the stereotype that turned Epicurus into a Phaeacian. Similarly, Lu- cretius’ and Philodemus’ criticisms of the rites in honor of the Asiatic Cybele suggest a tacit refutation of a cliché that associated the Epicureans with eunuchs and foreigners. Cassius’ rejection of the word voluptas and his reclaiming for the Garden of the word virtus belong to this effort as well. I would also place here Philodemus’ references to “the men.” Among the many ways to assign a gender to the Epicureans, there is the evidence of an original, first-generation, self-fashioning as we find it in the fatherly, bearded, and austere portraits of Epicurus, Hermarchus, and Metrodorus. Even if the presentation of Epicurus as patriarch is not as carefully calculated as some scholars suggest, the sculptures surely project the conventional values of the ideal Athenian male citizen. But if the Epicureans portrayed a woman Epicurean leader in the same pose, they included both sexes in their understanding of what an Epicurean philosopher should be. Although the theory that there was once a portrait sculpture of Leontion or emista that reiterated the iconography of the founding fathers must remain a mere suggestion, the evidence of the philosophical activity of these two women is strong (though I cannot argue the same for Hedeia, Nikidion, Erotion, or Mammarion). While the Epicureans included women in their philosophical fellowship, outsiders were determined to read the sex of those associates as a mere sign of an Epi- curean pursuit of bodily pleasures. Roman feminizing of the Epicurean male presented radically black-and-white paradigms, as in the recurrent figure that

30. Einarson and DeLacy 1967: 19.  195 constructed pleasure as the opposite of manliness. ere was also a more labo- rious way to construct an Epicurean ogre, as when Cicero turns Piso inside out, revealing the Gabinius that lurks within. But I would like to close with another stereotype of the Epicurean. While this one has comic aspects that scarcely suit the Epicurean ideal of tranquility, I find it strikingly aﬃrmative nonetheless.31 is is the zealous Epicurean as constructed by Lucian in his minor masterpiece Alexander the False Prophet. is text is especially significant to a history of Epicurean discourse because its explicit goal is to combat the prevailing stereotypes: its purpose is to please an Epicurean friend and, as the friend “will find even more pleasing [ἥδιον],” to “avenge Epicurus, a man truly saintly and prophetic in his nature, who alone truly discerned what the good things are, and handed them down, and who was the liberator of his friends” (Alex, 61). Lucian’s account of Alexander is a satire of religious charlatanry that ex- poses the egregious case of Alexander of Abonuteichos, a historical figure and contemporary of Lucian who had engineered the discovery of a snake god that was meant to be the reincarnation of Asclepius. Revealing himself as the prophet of this new god, Alexander set up a lucrative business selling oracular responses that were sometimes oﬀered directly from the snake’s mouth. Lucian presents Alexander as his personal enemy and styles himself as the Epicurean who is determined to expose the fraud. Lucian describes the hoax in detail: Alexander dressed as a god, a large snake draped around him, a linen head made to look as though it belonged to the snake, a darkened room, visitors es- corted out before they can get a good look. Ignorant adherents, thinking they were seeing a real snake opening and closing its mouth, were entirely convinced,

ὥστε πάνυ τὸ μηχάνημα ἐδεῖτο Δημοκρίτου τινὸς ἢ καὶ αὐτοῦ Έπικούρου ἢ Μητροδώρου ἤ τινος ἄλλου ἀδαμαντίνην πρὸς τὰ τοιαῦτα τὴν γνώμην ἔχοντος, ὡς ἀπιστῆσαι καὶ ὅπερ ἦν εἰκάσαι, καὶ εἰ μὴ εὑρεῖν τὸν τρόπον ἐδύνατο, ἐκεῖνο γοῦν προπεπεισμένου, ὅτι λέληθεν αὐτὸν ὁ τρόπος τῆς μαγγανείας, τὸ δ’ οὖν πᾶν ψεῦδός ἐστι καὶ γενέσθαι ἀδύνατον. (Alex. 17)

31. e Epicurean tone is disrupted, for example, when our earnest Epicurean bites his opponent. My subsequent reading of Lucian’s Alexander owes much to Jones 1986 and Branham 1989. 196      

[so that the scam needed a Democritus, or even Epicurus himself, or Metrodorus, or someone else with a mind steeled against such things, so as not to fall for it, and who would guess the truth, and—if he could not discover how it worked—would be convinced that, though he had not figured out how the trick was engineered, the whole thing was a lie and could not possibly happen.]

Lucian goes on to explain Alexander’s various tricks: the carefully planted rumors; the crane’s windpipes that were used as pipes to deliver the oracles through the mask; the assistants who were in on the hoax; Alexander’s flattery of other, better established oracles. Marshaling the skills of Epicurean method (as though he were imitating Lucretius’ alternate explanations of lightning), Lu- cian details several different furtive methods that Alexander might use to un- seal and reseal the secret inquiries brought to the oracle, adding that he could continue his list of possible explanations were he so inclined. Alexander’s responses to Lucian’s efforts to expose him include a public burning of the Prin- cipal Doctrines, a book that engenders “peace, tranquility, and freedom” in its readers. As an exaggerated Epicurean manifesto, the Alexander is a tour de force. In it, Lucian harmonizes his voice with Lucretius’ claim that Epicurus was a god, with Diogenes of Oenoanda’s confidence in the salvific power of Epicurean teachings, and with Diogenes Laertius’ sweeping acclamations and blanket dismissal of the enemies of Epicurus: “these people are out of their minds.”32 Mis- perceptions about the divine are clear and present, as the burgeoning second- century industry in oracles makes clear, and Alexander was a particularly ruthless practitioner.33 At the risk of sounding too trusting in the efficacies of Epicurean wisdom and in the virtus of the Epicurean, I give Lucian the last word. Lucian ends the Alexander with praise for its Epicurean recipient, a friend he reveres for his “wisdom, love of the truth, gentle manner, fairness, peaceful life, and kindness.”34 Outsiders rarely conceded that these were the traits of the Epicurean, but for many admirers of the Garden, these traits—suffi- ciently manly or not—were the most Epicurean of virtues.

32. DRN 5.8; Diogenes of Oenoanda, fr. 1 Smith; Diog. Laert. 10.9. 33. Elm von der Osten (2006) contextualizes the piece by connecting it with a widespread second-century critique of oracles. 34. σοφίὰ καὶ τῷ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἔρωτι καὶ τρόπου πραότητι καὶ ἐπιεικείὰ καὶ γαλήνῃ βίου καὶ δεξιότητι (Alex. 61). Works Cited

Adams, J. 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adler, Eve. 2003. Vergil’s Empire: Political ought in the Aeneid. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Albrecht, Michael von. 2003. Cicero’s Style: A Synopsis. Mnemosyne Supplement 245. Leiden: Brill. Aleshire, S. 1989. e Athenian Asklepieion: e People, eir Dedications, and the In- ventories. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben. Algra, K. A. 1997. “Lucretius and the Epicurean Other.” In Algra, Koenen, and Schrijvers 1997: 141–50. Algra, K. A. 2000. “e Treatise of Cleomedes and Its Critique of Epicurean Cosmol- ogy.” In Erler and Bees 2000: 164–89. Algra, K. A. 2003. “e Mechanisms of Social Appropriation and Its Role in Hellenistic Ethics.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 25:265–96. Algra, K. A., M. H. Koenen, and P. H. Schrijvers. 1997. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Algra, Keimpe, Jonathan Barnes, Jaap Mansfeld, and Malcolm Schofield, eds. 1999. e Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Ambrose, Z. Philip. 1965. “e Homeric Telos.” Glotta 43:38–62. Angeli, Anna. 1988a. Filodemo: Agli amici di scuola (PHerc. 1005). La scuola di Epicuro 7. Naples: Bibliopolis. Angeli, Anna. 1988b. “La scuola epicurea di Lampsaco nel PHerc. 176 (fr. 5 coll. I, IV, VIII–XXIII).” Cronache ercolanesi 18:27–51. Angeli, Anna. 1993. “Frammenti di lettere di epicuro nei papiri d’Ercolano.” Cronache ercolanesi 23:11–27. Angeli, Anna. 1993. “Le biografie di Leonteo, Idomeneo, et Batide nel Pherc 176.” In Del- l’Orto 1993: 301–9. Archer, Léonie, et al. 1994. Women in Ancient Societies: An Illusion of the Night. Ed. Léonie J. Archer, Susan Fischler, and Maria Wyke. New York: Routledge.

197 198  

Armstrong, David. 1995. “e Impossibility of Metathesis: Philodemus and Lucretius on Form and Content in Poetry.” In Obbink 1995: 210–32. Armstrong, David, Jeffrey Fish, Patricia A. Johnston, and Marilyn B. Skinner, eds. 2004. Vergil, Philodemus, and the Augustans. Austin: University of Texas Press. Armstrong, David, Jeffrey Fish, Patricia A. Johnston, and Marilyn B. Skinner. 2005. Re- sponse to Quartarone’s review of Armstrong et al. 2004. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 05.47. Arnott, W. Geoffrey. 1955. “e Asotodidaskalos Attributed to Alexis.” CQ, n.s., 5:210–16. Arnott, W. Geoffrey. 1996. Alexis: e Fragments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arrighetti, G. 1973. Epicuro: Opere. 2nd ed. Turin: Einaudi. Asmis, Elizabeth. 1990a. “Philodemus’ Epicureanism.” ANRW 2.36.4:2396–2406. Asmis, Elizabeth. 1990b. “Seneca’s On the Happy Life and Stoic Individualism.” Apeiron 23:219–55. Asmis, Elizabeth. 1991. “Philodemus’ Poetic eory and On the Good King according to Homer.” CA 10:1–45. Asmis, Elizabeth. 1995. “Epicurean Poetics.” In Obbink 1995: 15–34. Auvray, Clara-Emmanuelle. 1989. Folie et douleur dans Hercule Furieux et Hercule sur l’Oeta: Recherches sur l’expression esthétique de l’ascèse stoïcienne chez Sénèque. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Auvray-Assayas, Clara, and Daniel Delattre. 2001. Cicéron et Philodème:La polémique en philosophie. Collection études de littérature ancienne editions. Paris: Rue d’Ulm. Bailey, Cyril, ed. and trans. 1926. Epicurus: e Extant Remains. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Bakker, Egbert J., ed. 1997. Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in Its Linguistic Contexts. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Baldwin, B. 1992. “Greek in Cicero’s Letters.” Acta Classica 35:1–17. Barton, Carlin. 2001. Roman Honor: e Fire in the Bones. Berkeley: University of Cali- fornia Press. Beard, Mary. 2007. e Roman Triumph. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bermann, Sandra, and Michael Wood, eds. 2005. Nation, Language, and the Ethics of Translation. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Benferhat, Y. 2005. Ciues Epicurei: Les Epicuriens et l’idee de monarchie à Rome et en Italie de Sylla a Octave. Collection Latomus 292. Brussels: Editions Latomus. Bignone, Ettore. 1936. L’Aristotele perduto e la formazione filosofica de Epicuro. Vol. 1. Florence: La Nuova Italia. Bignone, Ettore. 1973. L’Aristotele perduto e la formazione filosofica de Epicuro. Vol. 2. Florence: La Nuova Italia. Blanchard-Lemée, M., and A. Blanchard. 1993. “Epicure dans une anthologie sur mosaïque à Autun.” Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 969–84.   199

Bollack, Jean, and André Laks. 1976. Études sur l’épicurisme Antique. Lille: Publications de l’Université de Lille. Boulonge, Jacques. 2003. Plutarque dan le miroir d’Épicure: Analyse d’une critique systé- matique de l’épicurisme. Villeneuve d’Ascq Cédex: Presses Universitaires du Septemtrion. Bourgery, A. 1911. “Les Lettres à Lucilius sont-ils lettres?” RPh. 35:40–55. Bowditch, Phoebe Lowell. 2001. Horace and the Gi Economy of Patronage. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bowen, C., and Robert B. Todd. 2004. Cleomedes’ Lectures on Astronomy: A Translation of e Heavens. Berkeley: University of California Press. Braund, David, and John Wilkins, eds. 2000. Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. Braund, Susanna Morton. 1997. “Virgil and the Cosmos: Religious and Philosophical Ideas.” In Martindale 1997: 204–21. Brenk, F. E. 2000. “All for Love: e Rhetoric of Exaggeration in Plutarch’s Erotikos.” In Van der Stockt 2000: 45–60. Brennan, Tad. 1996. “Epicurus on Sex, Marriage, and Children.” Classical Philology 91:346–52. Brent, Allen. 1995. Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the ird Century: Communi- ties in Tension before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop. Leiden: Brill. Brown, E. 2002. “Epicurus on the Value of Friendship (Sententia Vaticana XXIII).” Clas- sical Philology 97:68–80. Brown, Robert D. 1987. Lucretius on Love and Sex. Leiden: Brill. Buffière, Félix. 1956. Les Mythes d’Homère et la Pensée Grecque. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Buffière, Félix, ed. 1962. Héraclite: Allégories d’Homère. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Bulloch, Anthony, ed. 1993. Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley: University of California Press. Caizzi, F. D. 1993. “e Porch and the Garden: Early Hellenistic Images of the Philo- sophical Life.” In Bulloch 1993: 303–29. Canfora, L. 2003. “La première réception de Lucrèce à Rome.” In Monet 2003: 43–50. Carnes, Jeffrey S. 1993. “With Friends Like ese: Understanding the Mythic Back- ground of Homer’s Phaiakians.” Ramus 22:103–15. Castner, Catherine J. 1982. “Epicurean Hetairai as Dedicants to Healing Divinities?” GRBS 23: 51–57. Chantriaux-Vicard, Evelyn, et al. 1992. “Conservation-Restauration: Principes tech- niques et opérations spécifiques sur la mosaïque d’Autun.” In Chardron-Picault 1992: 43–46. Chambert, Régine. 2004. “Vergil’s Epicureanism in His Early Poems.” In Armstrong et. al. 2004: 43–62. Chardron-Picault, P. 1992. Metrodore: Un philosophe, une mosaïque. Catalog for an ex- hibition at the Musée Rolin, July 6–September 30. 200  

Chitwood, Ava. 2004. Death by Philosophy: e Biographical Tradition in the Lives and Deaths of Empedocles, Heraclitus, and Democritus. Ann Arbor: University of Michi- gan Press. Ciaravolo, Pietro. 2007. La personalità filosofica di Marco Tullio Cicerone. Rome: Aracne. Clark, Gillian, and Tessa Rajak, eds. 2002. Philosophy and Power in the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Miriam Griﬃn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clarke, M. L. 1973. “e Garden of Epicurus.” Phoenix 27:386–87. Clay, Diskin. 1983a. “Individual and Community in the First Generation of the Epi- curean School.” In SUZHTHSIS: Studi sull’ epicureismo greco e romano oﬀerti a Mar- cello Gigante, 255–79. Naples: Biblioteca della Parola del Passato. Clay, Diskin. 1983b. Lucretius and Epicurus. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Clay, Diskin. 1986. “e Cults of Epicurus.” CErc 16:11–28. Reprinted as Clay 1998: 75–102. Clay, Diskin. 1989. “A Lost Epicurean Community.” In Tradition and Innovation in Epi- cureanism: Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, ed. Paul A. Vander Waerdt, 30:313–35. Reprinted as Clay 1998: 232–55 chapter 15. Clay, Diskin. 1998. Paradosis and Survival: ree Chapters in the History of Epicurean Philosophy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Clay, Diskin. 2003. “Lucretius’ Honeyed Muse: e History and Meaning of a Simile.” In Monet 2003: 183–96. Clay, Diskin. 2004. “Vergil’s Farewell to Education (Catalepton 5) and Epicurus’ Letter to Pythocles.” In Armstrong et al. 2004: 25–36. Clay, J. S., et al., eds. 1993. Mega Nepios: Il Destinatario nell’ Epos Didascalico, Materiali e Discussione per l’analisi dei testi classici 31. Pisa: Giardini. Cleland, Liza, Glenys Davies, and Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones. 2007. Greek and Roman Dress from A to Z. London: Routledge. Coates, Victoria C. Gardner, and Jon L. Seydl. 2007. Antiquity Recovered: e Legacy of Pompeii and Herculaneum. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. Cohen, David J. 1991. Law, Sexuality, and Society: e Enforcement of Morals in Classi- cal Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbeill, Anthony. 1996a. Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Re- public. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Corbeill, Anthony. 1996b. “Dining Deviants.” In Hallett and Skinner 1997: 99–128. Corbeill, Anthony. 2004. Nature Embodied: Gesture in Ancient Rome. Princeton: Prince- ton University Press. Coulton, J. J. 1986. “Oinoanda: e Agora.” Anatolian Studies 36:61–90. Cucchiarelli, Andrea. 2001. La satira e il poeta: Orazio tra Epodi e Sermones. (Biblioteca di Materiali e discussione per l’analisi dei testi classici 17). Pisa: Giardini. Dalby, Andrew. 1996. Siren Feasts: A History of Food and Gastromony in Greece. London: Routledge. DeLacy, Phillip. 1941. “Cicero’s Invective against Piso.” TAPA 72:49–58. DeLacy, Phillip. 1993. Review of Manuale di papirologia ercolanese, by Mario Capasso. AJP 114:178–80.   201

Delattre, Daniel, ed. 2007. Philodéme de Gadara: Sur la musique, Livre IV. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Dell’Orto, Luisa Franchi. 1993. Ercolano 1738–1988: 250 anni di ricerca archeologica. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. DeWitt, Norman. 1954. Epicurus and His Philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Min- nesota Press. Dillon, Sheila. 2006. Ancient Greek Portrait Sculpture: Contexts, Subjects, and Styles. New York: Cambridge University Press. Di Marco, M. 1983. “Riflessi della polemica antiepicurea nei Silli di Timone, II: Epicuro, il porco e l’insaziabile ventre.” Elenchos 3:59–91. Dindorf, Wilhelm, ed. 1855. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Odysseam. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dohm, H. 1964. Mageiros. Munich: Beck. Dominik, William, and Jon Hall. 2007. A Companion to Roman Rhetoric. Malden, MA: Blackwell. duBois, Page. 1995. Sappho Is Burning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dugan, John. 2001. “Preventing Ciceronianism: C. Licinius Calvus’ Regimens for Sexual and Oratorical Self-Mastery.” Classical Philology 96:400–428. Dugan, John. 2005. Making a New Man: Ciceronian Self-Fashioning in the Rhetorical Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dunbabin, Katherine M. D. 1989. “Baiarum Grata Voluptas: Pleasures and Dangers of the Baths.” Papers of the British School at Rome 57:6–46. Dyson, Julia. 1996. “Dido the Epicurean.” CA 15:203–21. Earl, Donald C. 1967. e Moral and Political Tradition of Rome. London: ames and Hudson. Edwards, Catharine. 1993. e Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Eisenhut, Werner. 1973. Virtus Romana: Ihre Stellung im römischen Wertsystem. Mu- nich: Fink. Elm von der Osten, Dorothee. 2006. “Die Inszenierung des Betruges und seiner Entlarvung: Divination und ihre Kritiker in Lukians Schrift ‘Alexandros oder der Lügenprofet.’” In Texte als Medium und Reflexion von Religion im römischen Reich, ed. Dorothee Elm von der Osten, Jörg Rüpke, Katharina Waldner, 141–57. Potsdamer altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge 14. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Erler, Michael. 1992. “Der Zorn des Helden, Philodems ‘De Ira’ und Vergis Konzept des Zorns in der ‘Aeneis.’” Gräzer Beiträge 18:103–26. Erler, Michael. 1994. “Frauen im Kepos.” In Die Philosophie der Antike, ed. H. Flashar, vol. 4, Die hellenistische Philosophie, 287–88. Basel: Schwabe. Erler Michael, and R. Bees, eds. 2000. Epikureismus in der späten Republik und der Kaiserzeit. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Erler Michael, and R. Bees. 2003. “Exempla amoris: Der epikureische Epilogismos als 202  

philosophischer Hintergrund der Diatribe gegen die Liebe in Lukrez De rerum natura.” In Monet 2003: 147–62. Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman. 2nd ed., 2001. Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. Farrell, Joseph. 1991. Vergil’s “Georgics” and the Traditions of Ancient Epic: e Art of Al- lusion in Literary History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Farrell, Joseph. 1997. “e Virgilian Intertext.” In e Cambridge Companion to Virgil, 222–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferguson, John. 1990. “Epicureanism under the Roman Empire.” ANRW 2.36:2257– 2327. Ferrary, Jean-Louis. 2001. “Réponse à Miriam Griﬃn.” In Auvray-Assayas and Delattre 2001: 101–5. Ferri, Rolando. 1993. I dispiaceri di un epicureo: Uno studio sulla poetica oraziana delle Epistole (con un capitolo su Persio). Pisa: Giardini. Festugière, A. J. 1995. Epicurus and His Gods. Trans. C. W. Chilton. Oxford: Blackwell. Fine, Gail, ed. 1999. Plato. Vol. 2, Ethics, Politics, Religion, and the Soul. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fischer-Hansen, Tobias, John Lund, Marjatta Nielsen, and Annette Rathje, eds. 1992. Ancient Portraiture: Image and Message. Danish Studies in Classical Archaeology, Acta Hyperborea 4. Copenhagen: Collegium Hyperboreum. Fittschen, K. 1992. “Uber das Rekonstruieren griechischer Portratstatuen.” In Fischer- Hansen et al. 1992: 9–28. FitzGibbon, Patricia M. 2003. “Epicurean Case-Studies in Aelian’s Fragments.” Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Philological Association. FitzGibbon, Patricia M. 2008. “Boethus and Cassius: Two Epicureans in Plutarch.” In Nikolaidis 2008: 445–60. Foucault, Michel. 1985. The Use of Pleasure. Vol. 2. of The History of Sexuality. Trans. R. Hurley. New York: Random House. Originally published in French in 1984. Fowler, Don. 2002a. Lucretius on Atomic Motion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fowler, Don. 2002b. “Masculinity under reat? e Poetics and Politics of Inspiration in Latin Poetry.” In Spentzou and Fowler 2002: 141–59. Fraser, P. M., and E. Matthews. 1987. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Vol. 2, Attica. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Friedrich, Gustav, ed. 1908. Catulli Veronensis Liber. Leipzig: Teubner. Frischer, Bernard. 1982. e Sculpted Word: Epicureanism and Philosophical Recruit- ment in Ancient Greece. Berkley: University of California Press. Frischer, Bernard. 2007. e Sculpted Word: Epicureanism and Philosophical Recruit- ment in Ancient Greece. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. Available online, through the Humanities E-Book Project of the American Council of Learned Societies, at http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.90022.0001.001.   203

Fuchs, Jacob, trans. 1977. Horace’s Satires and Epistles. New York: Norton. Gale, Monica R. 1994. Myth and Poetry in Lucretius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gale, Monica R. 2000. Virgil on the Nature of ings: e “Georgics,” Lucretius, and the Didactic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galinsky, Karl. 1988. “e Anger of Aeneas.” AJP 109:321–48. Gallo, I. 1976. “Commedia e filosofia in età ellenistica: Batone.” Vichiana 5, n.s., 206– 42. Gigandet, Alain, and Pierre-Marie Morel, eds. 2007. Lire Épicure et les épicuriens. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Gigante, Marcello. 1992. “Das zehnte Buch des Diogenes Laertios: Epikur und der Epikureismus.” In ANRW 2.36.6:4302–7. Gigante, Marcello. 1995. Philodemus in Italy: e Books from Herculaneum. Trans. Dirk Obbink. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Gleason, Maud. 1995. Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gold, Barbara. 1993. “‘But Ariadne Was Never ere in the First Place’: Finding the Fe- male in Roman Poetry.” In Feminist eory and the Classics, ed. Nancy Sorkin Rabi- nowitz and Amy Richlin, 75–101. New York. Golden, M. 1986. “Names and Naming at Athens.” Echos du monde classique/Classical Views 30:245–69. Gordon, D. R., and D. B. Suits, eds. 2003. Epicurus: His Continuing Influence and Con- temporary Relevance. Rochester, NY: RIT Cary Graphic Arts. Gordon, Pamela. 1998. “Phaeacian Dido: Lost Pleasures of an Epicurean Intertext.” CA 17:188–211. Gordon, Pamela. 2002. “Some Unseen Monster: Rereading Lucretius on Sex.” In e Ro- man Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body, ed. David Fredrick, 86–109. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gordon, Pamela. 2004. “Remembering the Garden.” In Philodemus and the New Testa- ment world, ed. John T. Fitzgerald, Dirk Obbink, and Glenn Stanfield Holland, 221–42. Brill. Görler, Woldemar. 1996. “Dido und Seneca über Glück und Vollendung.” MH 53:160–69. Gosling, J. C. B., and C. C. W. Taylor. 1982. e Greeks on Pleasure. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Gowers, Emily. 1996. e Loaded Table: Representations of Food in Roman Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gowers, Emily. 2003. “Fragments of Autobiography in Horace ‘Satires’ 1.” CA 22:55–91. Graver, Margaret. 1998. “e Manhandling of Maecenas: Senecan Abstractions of Mas- culinity.” AJP 119:608–32. Greenblatt, Stephen. 1981. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 204  

Greene, Ellen. 2000. “Gender Identity and the Elegiac Hero in Propertius 2.1.” Arethusa 33:241–61. Greene, Ellen. 2006. “Catullus, Caesar, and Roman Masculine Identity.” Antichthon 40:49–64. Grey, William Richard. 1896. e Treatment of Philosophy and Philosophers by the Greek Comic Poets. Baltimore: Friedenwald. Griffin, Miriam. 1989. “Philosophy, Politics, and Politicians at Rome.” In Griffin and Barnes 1989: 1–37. Griffin, Miriam. 1995. “Philosophical Badinage in Cicero’s Letters to His Friends.” In Powell 1995a: 325–46. Griffin, Miriam. 2001. “Piso, Cicero, and eir Audience.” In Auvray-Assayas and De- lattre 2001: 85–100. Griffin, Miriam, and Jonathan Barnes. 1989. Philosophia togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grimal, Pierre, ed. 1966. Cicero Contre L. Pison. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Gruen, Erich S. 1998. Heritage and Hellenism: e Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press. Guarducci, Margherita. 1976. “La Statua di ‘Sant’ Ippolito’ in Vaticano.” Atti della Ponti- ficia Accademia romana di archeologia, 163–90. Guarducci, Margherita. 1991. “San Pietro e ‘Sant’ Ippolito’: Storia di statue famose in Vaticano.” Rome: Isituto Poligrafico dello Stato. Gunderson, Erik. 2000. Staging Masculinity: e Rhetoric of Performance in the Roman World. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Guthrie, K. 1987. e Pythagorian Sourcebook and Library. Grand Rapids: Phanes Press. Hall, Jon. 2009. Politeness and Politics in Cicero’s Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hallett, Judith P., and Marilyn Skinner. 1997. Roman Sexualities. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hamilton, Colin I. M. 1993. “Dido, Tityos, and Prometheus.” CQ 43:249–54. Hammerstaedt, Jurgen, and Martin Ferguson Smith. 2008. “Diogenes of Oenoanda: e Discoveries of 2008.” Epigraphica Anatolica 41:1–37. Hardie, Philip R. 1986. Virgil’s “Aeneid”: Cosmos and Imperium. Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press. Harrison, S. J. 1995. “Poetry, Philosophy, and Letter-Writing in Horace, Epistles 1.” In Innes, Hine, and Pelling 1995: 47–61. Harrison, S. J. 2001. ed. Texts, Ideas, and the Classics: Scholarship, eory, and Classical Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hawley, Richard. 1994. “e Problem of Women Philosophers in Ancient Greece.” In Archer et al. 1994: 70–87. Hemelrijk, Emily Ann. 1999. Matrona Docta: Educated Women in the Roman Elite from Cornelia to Julia Domna. London: Routledge. Hercher, Rudolf. 1873. Paris: A.F. Didot. Hershbell, J. P. 1992. “Plutarch and Epicureanism.” ANRW 2.36.5:3353–83.   205

Heubeck, Alfred, Stephanie West, and J. B. Hainsworth. 1988. A Commentary on Homer’s “Odyssey.” Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hexter, Ralph. 1992. “Sidonian Dido.” In Innovations of Antiquity, ed. Daniel Seldon and Ralph Hexter, 332–84. New York: Taylor and Francis. Holmes, Brooke. 2005. “Daedala Lingua: Craed Speech in De rerum natura.” AJP 126:527–85. Ierodiakonou, Katerina, ed. 2002. Topics in Stoic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Indelli, Giovanni, and Voula Tsouna-McKirahan, eds. 1995. Philodemus, “On Choices and Avoidances.” La scuola di Epicuro 15. Naples: Bibliopolis. Innes, D., H. Hine, and C. Pelling, eds. 1995. Ethics and Rhetoric: Classical Essays for Donald Russell on His Seventy-fih Birthday. Oxford: Clarendon. Inwood, Brad, and L. P. Gerson, eds. and trans. 1994. e Epicurus Reader: Selected Writ- ings and Testimonia. Indianapolis: Hackett. Inwood, Brad. 2003. e Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Inwood, Brad. 2007a. “e Importance of Form in Seneca’s Philosophical Letters.” In Morello and Morrison 2007: 133–48. Inwood, Brad. 2007b. Seneca: Selected Philosophical Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Inwood, Brad, and Pierluigi Donini. 1999. “Stoic Ethics.” In Algra et al. 1999: 675–738. Janko, Richard, ed. 2000. Philodemus, “On Poems,” Book One. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Johnson, Sara R. 2004. Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity: ird Mac- cabees in Its Cultural Context. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jørgen, Mejer. 1992. “Diogenes Laertius and the Transmission of Greek Philosophy.” ANRW 2.36.5:3556–3602. Jørgen, Mejer. 2007. “Biography and Doxography: Four Crucial Questions Raised by Diogenes Laertius.” In Die griechische Biographie in hellenistischer Zeit: Akten des in- ternationalen Kongresses vom 26.–29. Juli 2006 in Würzburg, ed. Erler Michael and Schorn Stefan, 431–42. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Jufresa, M. 1982. “Il mito dei Feaci in Filodemo.” In La Regione sotterrata dal Vesuvio: Studi e Prospetti; Atti del Convegno Internazionale, 11–15 Bivenber 1979, 509–18. Naples: Università degli Studi di Napoli. Kaiser, E. 1964. “Odyssee-Szenen als Topoi.” MH 21:109–36, 197–224. Kaster, Robert A. 2005. Emotion, Restraint, and Community in Ancient Rome. London: Oxford University Press. Kaster, Robert A. 2006. Cicero: Speech on Behalf of Publius Sestius. Oxford: Clarendon; New York: Oxford University Press. Kaster, Robert A. 2007. Review of McDonnell 2006. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 02.08. Kennedy, George A., trans. 1999. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition Introductory to the Study of Rhetoric. Fort Collins: Chez l’auteur. 206  

Kilpatrick, Ross Stuart. 1986. e Poetry of Friendship: Horace, “Epistles” 1. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press. King, Christine M. 1971. “Seneca’s Hercules Oetaeus: A Stoic Interpretation of the Greek Myth.” Greece and Rome 18:215–22. Klodt, Claudia. 2003. “Prozessparteien und politische Gegner als dramatis personae: Charakterstilisierung in Ciceros Reden.” In Schröder and Schröder 2003: 35–106. Knauer, Georg. 1964. Die Aeneis und Homer: Studien zur poetischen Technik Vergils mit Listen der Homerzitate in der Aeneis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. König, Jason, and Tim Whitmarsh, eds. 2007. Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Konstan, David. 2003 “Epicureanism.” In Shields 2003: 237–54. Konstan, David. 2009. “Epicurus.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/epicurus/. Konstan, David. 2008. A Life Worthy of the Gods: e Materialist Psychology of Epicurus. Las Vegas: Parmenides. Koster, Severin. 1980. Die Invektive in der griechischen und romischen Literatur. Meisen- heim am Glan: Hain. Kronenberg, Leah. 2005. “Mezentius the Epicurean.” TAPA 135:403–31. Krostenko, Brian A. 2001. Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Laks, André. 1976. “Édition critique et commentée de la Vie d’Epicure dans Diogene Laerce (X, 1–34).” In Bollack and Laks 1976, 1–118. Lamberton, Robert, and John J. Keaney, eds. 1992. Homer’s Ancient Readers: e Hermeneutics of Greek Epic’s Earliest Exegetes. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Lane, Eugene N., ed. 1996. Cybele, Attis, and Related Cults: Essays in Memory of M. J. Vermaseren. Leiden: Brill. Langlands, Rebecca. 2006. Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Laurand, I. 1907. Études sur le style des discourse de Cicéron avec une esquisse de l’histoire du “cursus.” 3 vols. Paris: Librairie Hachette. Le Doeﬀ, Michèle. 1989. e Philosophical Imaginary. London: Athlone. Ling, Roger, and Alan Hall. 1981. “Building Mk1 at Oenoanda.” Anatolian Studies 31:31–53. Lombardo, Stanley, trans. 2000. Homer’s “Odyssey.” Indianapolis: Hackett. Long, A. A. 1978. “Timon of Phlius: Pyrrhonist and Satirist.” Proceedings of the Cam- bridge Philological Society 204:68–90. Long, A. A. 1986. “Pleasure and Social Utility: e Virtues of Being Epicurean.” In As- pects de la philosophie hellénistique: Neuf exposés suivis de discussions, I. E. Kidd, Hellmut Flashar, Olof Gignon, et al., 283–316. Geneva: Fondation Hardt. Reprinted in Long 2006: 178–201. Long, A. A. 1992. “Stoic Readings of Homer.” In Lamberton and Keaney 1992: 41–66.   207

Long, A. A. 2006. From Epicurus to Epictetus: Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philoso- phy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Longo Auricchio, F. 1978. “La scuola di Epicuro.” Cronache ercolanesi 8:21–37. Longo Auricchio, F. 1988. Ermarco: Frammenti. La scuola di Epicuro 6. Naples: Bib- liopolis. Longo Auricchio, F. 2004. “Philosophy’s Harbor.” In Armstrong et al. 2004: 37–42. Lyne, R. O. A. M. 1994, “Vergil’s Aeneid: Subversion by Intertextuality; Catullus 66.39–40 and Other Examples.” Greece and Rome 41:187–204. Malherbe, Abraham. 1977. e Cynic Epistles. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Mann, Wolfgang-Rainer. 2006. “Learning How to Die: Seneca’s Use of Aeneid 4.653 at Epistulae Morales 12.9.” In Volk and Williams 2006: 103–22. Martindale, Charles. 1997. e Cambridge Companion to Virgil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maso, S. 1993. “Il giardino/porcile di Epicuro.” Lexis 11:135–50. Maso, S. 1999. Lo Sguardo della Verità: Cinque Studi su Seneca. Padua: Il Poligrafo. Maso, S. 2007. “Epicuri mentionem facis et audes dicere me politeuesthai: Cicerone e l’incoerenza nella politica.” In Ciaravolo 2007: 197–209. Maso, S. 2008. Capire e dissentire: Cicerone e la fi losofi a di Epicuro. Elenchos 48. Naples: Bibliopolis. Mattusch, Carol C. 2005. e Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum: Life and Aerlife of a Sculpture Collection. With Henry Lie. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. McClure, Laura K. 2003. Courtesans at Table: Gender and Greek Literary Culture in Athenaeus. New York: Routledge. McDonnell, Myles Anthony. 2006. Roman Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mejer, Jørgen. 1978. Diogenes Laertius and His Hellenistic Background. Hermes Einzelschrien 40. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Mellinghoﬀ-Bourgerie, Viviane. 1990. Les incertitudes de Virgile: Contributions épicuri- ennes à la thélogie de l’Énéide. Brussels: Latomus. Mitford, T. B. 1961. “Hellenistic inscriptions of Old Paphos.” Annual of the British School at Athens 56:1–41 Mitsis, Phillip. 1993. “Committing Philosophy on the Reader: Didactic Coercion and Autonomy in De rerum natura.” In Schiesaro, Mitsis, and Clay 1993: 111–28. Momigliano, A. 1941a. “Epicureans in Revolt.” JRS 31:149–57. Momigliano, A. 1941b. Review of Science and Politics in the Ancient World, by Benjamin Farrington. JRS 31:149–57. Monet, A., ed. 2003. Le jardin romain: Épicurisme et poésie à Rome; Mélanges oﬀerts à Mayotte Bollack. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Centre de Gestion de l’Édition Scientifique, Université Charles-de-Gaulle–Lille 3. Morana, Cyril. 1996. “L’atomisme antique face a l’amour.” Revue philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger 186:119–32. 208  

Morello, R., and A. Morrison, eds. 2007. Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epis- tolography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Morrison, A. 2006. “Advice and Abuse: Horace, Epistles 1 and the Iambic Tradition.” Ma- teriali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 56:29–61. Morrison, A. 2007. “Didacticism and Epistolarity in Horace’s Epistles 1.” In Morello and Morrison 2007: 107–32. Morrison, A., and R. Gibson. 2007. “What Is a Letter?” In Morello and Morrison 2007: 1–16. Most, Glenn. 1989. “e Structure and Function of Odysseus’ Apologoi.” TAPA 119:15–30. Nappa, Christopher. 1998. “Place Settings: Convivium, Contrast, and Persona in Catul- lus 12 and 13.” AJP 119:385–97. Neudecker, Richard. 1988. Die Skulpturenausstattung römischer Villen in Italien. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern. Nikolaidis, Anastasios G., ed. 2008. e Unity of Plutarch’s Work: “Moralia” emes in the “Lives,” Features of the “Lives” in the “Moralia.” Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Nisbet, R. G. M. 1961. Commentary, In L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nussbaum, Martha. 1986. “erapeutic Arguments: Epicurus and Aristotle.” In e Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics, ed. M. Schofield and G. Striker, 31–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nussbaum, Martha. 1994. e erapy of Desire: eory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. O’Keefe, T. 2001. “Is Epicurean Friendship Altruistic?” Apeiron 34:269–305. Obbink, Dirk, ed. 1995. Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic eory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Obbink, Dirk. 1996. Philodemus, “On Piety.” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Obbink, Dirk. 1997. “e Mooring Of Philosophy.” Review of Indelli and Voula Tsouna- McKirahan 1995. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 15:259. Odgen, Daniel. 1996. Greek Bastardy in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods. Oxford: Ox- ford University Press. Oliver, J. H. 1975. “e Empress Plotina and the Sacred ymelic Synod.” Historia 24:125–28. Olson, S. Douglas, and Alexander Sens. 2000. Archestratos of Gela: Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Olson, S. Douglas, and Alexander Sens, eds. and trans. 2006. Athenaeus, “e Learned Banqueters.” Vol. 1. Loeb edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Olson, S. Douglas, and Alexander Sens, eds. and trans. 2008. Athenaeus, “e Learned Banqueters.” Vol. 3. Loeb edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Paratore, E. 1973. “La problemática sull’epicureismo a Roma.” In ANRW 14, ed. H. Tem- porini, 116–204. Berlin.   209

Patillon, Michel, ed. 1997. Aelius eon, Progymnasmata. Editions Budé. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Pease, Arthur Stanley. 1935. Publi Vergili Maronis Aeneidos: Liber Quartus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Perlwitz, Olaf. 1992. Titus Pomponius Atticus. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Pfeiﬀer, Rudolf. 1968. History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Potter, D. S. 2006. A Companion to the Roman Empire. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Porter, James I. 2003. “Lucretius and the Poetics of Void.” In Monet 2003: 197–226. Porter, James I. 2007. “Hearing Voices: e Herculaneum Papyri and Classical Scholar- ship.” In Coates and Seydl 2007: 95–113. Poulsen, F. 1945. “Talking, Weeping, and Bleeding Sculptures: A Chapter of the History of Religious Fraud.” Acta Archaeologica 16:178–95. Powell, J. G. F., ed. 1995a. Cicero the Philosopher. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Powell, J. G. F. 1995b. “Cicero’s Translations from Greek.” In Powell 1995a: 273–300. Procopé, John. 1998. “Epicureans on Anger.” In e Emotions in Hellenistic Philosophy, ed. J. Sihvola and T. Engberg-Pedersen, 171–96. New Synthese Historical Library. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Quint, David. 1989. “Voices of Resistance: e Epic Curse and Camões’s Adamastor.” Representations 27:111–41. Rawson, Elizabeth. 1979. “L. Cornelius Sisenna and the Early First Century B.C.” CQ 29:327–46. Richardson, Lawrence. 1992. A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Balti- more: Johns Hopkins University Press. Richlin, Amy. 1997. “Gender and Rhetoric: Producing Manhood in the Schools.” In Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literature, ed. W. J. Dominik, 90–110. London. Richter, Gisela Marie Augusta. 1971. e Engraved Gems of the Romans. London. Richter, Gisela Marie Augusta. 1984. e Portraits of the Greeks. Abridged and revised by R. R. R. Smith. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Riﬀaterre, Michael. 1981. “L’Intertexte Inconnu.” Littérature 41:5. Rosenbaum, Stephen E. 1990. “Epicurus on Pleasure and the Complete Life.” Monist 73:21–41. Rosenstein, Nathan Stewart. 1990. Imperatores Victi: Military Defeat and Aristocratic Competition in the Middle and Late Republic. Berkeley: University of California Press. Roskam, Geert. 2007a. Live Unnoticed (Lathe biosas): On the Vicissitudes of an Epicurean Doctrine. Philosophia Antiqua 111. Leiden: Brill. Roskam, Geert. 2007b. A Commentary on Plutarch’s “De latenter vivendo.” Leuven: Leu- ven University Press. Russell, Donald A., trans. 2001. Quintilian, “e Orator’s Education.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 210  

Russell, Donald A., and David Konstan, eds. and trans. 2005. Heraclitus: Homeric Prob- lems. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Santoro L’Hoir, Francesca. 1992. Rhetoric of Gender Terms: ‘Man,’ ‘Woman,’ and the Por- trayal of Character in Latin Prose. Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava Supple- mentum, 120. Leiden: Brill. Sbordone, F. 1983. “Il quadrifarmaco epicureo.” CErc 13 117–19. Schefold, Karl. 1943. Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner und Denker. Basel: Schwabe. Schiesaro, Alessandro, Phillip Mitsis, and Jenny Strauss Clay, eds. 1993. Mega Nepios: Il destinario nell’epos didascalico. Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 31. Pisa: Giardini. Schmaltz, B. 1985. “Das Bildnis des Epikur.” Marburg Winckelmann-Programm, 17–56. Schneider, K. 1913. “Hetairai.” RE 8.2:1331–72. Schröder, Bianca-Jeanette, and Jens-Peter Schröder. 2003. Studium declamatorium: Un- tersuchungen zu Schulübungen und Prunkreden von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 176. Munich: K. G. Saur. Sciarrino, Enrica. 2007. “Roman Oratory before Cicero: e Elder Cato and Gaius Grac- chus.” In Dominik and Hall 2007: 54–66. Sedley, David. 1976. “Epicurus and His Professional Rivals.” In Bollack and Laks 1976. Sedley, David. 1989. “Philosophical Allegiance in the Greco-Roman World.” In Griﬃn and Barnes 1989: 97–119. Sedley, David 1997. “e Ethics of Brutus and Cassius.” JRS 87:41–53. Sedley, David. 1998. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sedley, David. 1999. “e Ideal of Godlikeness.” In Fine 1999: 309–28. Sedley, David. 2002. “e Stoic-Platonist Debate on kathêkonta.” In Ierodiakonou 2002. Segal, Charles. 1971. “e Song of Iopas in the Aeneid.” Hermes 99:336–49. Sharrock, Alison. 2008. “e Philosopher and the Mother Cow: Towards a Gendered Reading of Lucretius, De rerum natura.” In Laughing with Medusa: Classical Myth and Feminist ought, ed. Vanda Zajko and Miriam Leonard, 253–74. Shields, Christopher, ed. 2003. e Blackwell Guide to Ancient Philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Sider, David. 1987. “e Love Poetry of Philodemus.” AJP 108:311–23. Sider, David. 1995a. “e Epicurean Philosopher as Hellenistic Poet.” In Obbink 1995: 42–57. Sider, David. 1995b. “Epicurean Poetics: Response and Dialogue.” In Obbink 1995: 35–41. Sider, David. 1997. e Epigrams of Philodemos. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sider, David. 2005. e Library of the Villa dei Papyri at Herculaneum. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. Smith, Martin Ferguson. 1996. e Philosophical Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaen.   211

Smith, Martin Ferguson. 2003. Supplement to Diogenes of Oinoanda the Epicurean In- scription. Naples: Bibliopolis. Smith, Martin Ferguson. 2004. “In Praise of the Simple Life: A New Fragment of Diog - enes of Oinoanda.” Anatolian Studies 54:35–46. Snyder, Jane. 1989. e Woman and the Lyre: Women Writers in Classical Greece and Rome. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Spentzou, Efrossini, and Don Fowler. 2002. Cultivating the Muse: Struggles for Power and Inspiration in Classical Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stewart, A. 1990. Greek Sculpture: An Exploration. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press. Stokes, Michael C. 1995. “Cicero on Epicurean Pleasures.” In Powell 1995a: 145–70. Stoneman, Richard. 2000. “You Are What You Eat: Diet and Philosophical diaita in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae.” In Braund and Wilkins 2000, 413–22. Summers, Kirk. 1996. “Lucretius’ Roman Cybele.” In Lane 1996: 337–66. Tooke, William, William Beloe, and Robert Nares. 1798. A New and General Biographi- cal Dictionary: Containing an Historical and Critical Account of the Lives and Writ- ings of the Most Eminent Persons in Every Nation; Particularly the British and Irish; from the Earliest Accounts of Time to the Present Period. Vol. 9. London: G. G. and J. Robinson. Trapp, Michael, ed. 2003. Greek and Latin Letters: An Anthology with Translation. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Tsouna, Voula. 2001. “Cicéron et Philodème: Quelques considérations sur l’éthique.” In Auvray-Assayas and Delattre 2001: 159–72. Tsouna, Voula. 2007. e Ethics of Philodemus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. van Bremen, Riet. 2005. “Plotina to All Her Friends: e Empress Plotina and the Epi- cureans in Athena.” Chiron 35:499–532. Van der Stockt, L. 2000. Rhetorical eory and Praxis in Plutarch. Leuven: Peeters; Na- mur: Société des Etudes Classiques. Venuti, Lawrence. 1998. e Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Diﬀerence. London: Routledge. Volk, Katharina, and Gareth D. Williams. 2006. Seeing Seneca Whole: Perspectives on Philosophy, Poetry, and Politics. Leiden: Brill. von den Hoﬀ, Ralf. 1994. Philosophenporträts des Früh- und Hochhellenismus. Munich: Beiring und Brinkmann. Vuillemot, G., R. Martin, and R. Turcan. 1966. “La maison d’Anacréon.” Mémoires de la Société éduenne 51:31–42. Warren, James. 2000. “Diogenes Epikourios: Keep Taking the Tablets.” Journal of Hel- lenic Studies 120:144–48. Warren, James. 2004. Facing Death: Epicurus and His Critics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Warren, James. 2007. “Diogenes Laertius, Biographer of Philosophy.” In Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire, ed. Jason König and Tim Whitmarsh, 133–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 212  

Welch, Tara. 2008. “Horace’s Journey through Arcadia.” TAPA 138:47–74. White, Peter. 2010. Cicero in Letters: Epistolary Relations of the Late Republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wigodsky, Michael. 1995. “e Alleged Impossibility of Philosophical Poetry.” In Ob- bink 1995: 58–68. Wilkins, John. 2000a. “Dialogue and Comedy: e Structure of the Deipnosophistae.” In Braund and Wilkins 2000: 23–37. Wilkins, John. 2000b. e Boastful Chef. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, Craig A. 1999. Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, Craig A. 2010. Roman Homosexuality. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilson, C. M. 2001. “Seneca’s Epistles Reclassified.” In Harrison 2001: 164–87. Wojcik, Maria Rita. 1986. La Villa Dei Papiri ad Ercolano: Contributo Alla Ricostruzione Dell’ideologia Della Nobilitas Tardorepubblicana. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Woolf, Raphael, trans. 2001. Cicero, “On Moral Ends.” Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. Wörrle, Michael. 1988. Stadt und Fest in kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien: Studien zu einer ag- onistischen Stiung aus Oenoanda. Munich: C. H. Beck. Wyke, Maria. 1994. “Taking the Woman’s Part: Engendering Roman Love Elegy.” Ramus 23:110–28. Zanker, Paul. 1995. e Mask of Socrates: e Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity, trans. Alan Shapiro. Berkeley: University of California Press. Index Locorum

Aelian Politica Fragments quoted in the Suda 1338a 27: 49n23 39 Hercher: 108n85, 139n1 1338a 27–30: 45 87.17–21 Hercher: 156 89.1–2 Hercher: 155 Athenaeus 1.4e: 36n48 Aeschines 1.16d: 49n21 In Timarchum 1.16e: 48 1.131: 73 3.101f: 36, 46 3.102a–b = Damoxenus fr. 2.1–16 Alciphron Kock: 25 Letters of Courtesans 3.102f: 24 4.17.2: 81 3.103b = Damoxenus, fr. 2.62–64 4.17.3: 80–81, 81n30, 85 Kock: 27 Letters of Parasites 3.104b: 36, 41, 46 2.4: 28n28 5.177b: 45 3.19.8: 28 5.179d–e; Semonides, fr. 7.56 West: 91 4.18: 28n28 5.182a: 46 19.3: 159 5.187b: 45 7.278f: 20–21 Aretaeus 7.279a–b: 21 On the Causes and Symptoms of Acute 7.279c–d: 22 and Chronic Diseases 7.279d: 23 4.5: 152 7.279f Supplementum Hellenisticum 781: 18 Aristophanes 7.280a: 16n5 Lysistrata 7.281e: 19 232: 106n80 7.290a–b: 23 7.291e–f: 23–24 Aristotle 7.298d: 30 Ethica Nicomachea 7.298d–e: 32, 72, 90 1149a: 22n16 8.336e–f = Alexis, fr. 25: 33–34

213 214  

Athenaeus (continued) 13: 175–76 12.513a–e: 41, 45 14: 170 12.513e: 39n4 18: 169 12.531a–b: 38n3 20: 170 13.567b: 103 22: 169 13.588b: 18n10, 84, 89 37: 163 13.593b–d: 102 42: 164 13.601c–d: 19 56: 190 59: 163 Aulus Gellius 60: 190 Noctes Atticae 66: 163 6.12.2: 73n5 68: 171 9.9: 60, 62n55 68–72: 174 69: 149, 164 Aurelius, Marcus 70: 171 Meditations 72: 174 4.3.2: 155 73: 174 74: 174n107 Catullus 13: 54 79: 172 83: 176 Cicero 89: 170 Epistulae ad Atticum De Natura Deorum 11.17.1: 137–38 1.93: 76, 88 Epistulae ad familiares Post Reditum in Senatu 15.16: 189n15 10: 168 15.17.3: 130 11: 169 15.19: 191n23 13: 169, 171, 190 15.19.1: 130 14: 163, 164, 167, 168 15.19.2: 130 17: 169, 190 15.19.3: 131–32 Pro Sestio 16.3: 129 17: 169 De republica 18: 169, 170 1.1: 58 19: 166–68, 170 De finibus 22: 167 2.8: 127 23: 125, 163, 164 2.12: 123, 125, 126, 127 66: 181 2.14: 128 Tusculanae Disputationes 2.23: 125, 127 2.15: 111 2.24: 127 2.22.53: 116 2.28: 2, 126, 149 2.43: 115 2.67–68: 75 2.44: 115 2.77: 166, 177 2.45: 111n7 2.81: 166 3.50: 113 In Pisonem 5.118: 70–71 1: 165, 167, 168, 169   215

Clement of Alexandria Dionysius of Halicarnasus Stromata On Literary Composition 1.1.1: 78n23 18: 186 4.19: 106 4.19.121: 78 Epictetus Dissertationes Cleomedes 2.20.6: 180–81 Caelestia 2.20.20: 178, 180–81 58: 178 165–66: 187–88 Epicurus 168: 179 Epistola ad Herodotum 77: 28 Dio Chrysostom 78: 64 Orationes Epistola ad Menoeceum 12.36: 129n46 122: 3n7, 70 126–27: 70 Diogenes Laertius 127: 3n7 2.10: 30, 80 131: 6, 8, 27, 32, 43, 47, 90, 127, 134 3.22: 80 132: 6, 8, 27, 31, 32, 42, 47, 57n45, 60, 4.40: 180 116, 120, 127, 134 7.187: 35 135: 5, 59 10.3: 12, 17, 18, 83, 99, 192 Gnomologium Vaticanum 10.5: 79n27, 83, 84, 88 17.2–3: 58 10.6–7: 15 27: 5n12, 64 10.7: 179 36: 191 10.9: 1, 15, 19 41: 5 10.11: 70, 84, 97, 151 47: 70 10.17: 35n47 52: 59 10.25: 79 56–57: 59 10.28: 79 78: 5, 59 10.119: 70, 97 79: 28n27 10.127: 82 81: 3n7 10.138: 15 Letter to Pythoclem 89: 29 Diogenes of Oenoanda 92: 28 fr. 1 Smith: 196n32 101: 28 fr. 2, col. III Smith: 7 105: 28 fr. 3. cols. IV–VI Smith: 4n9 110: 29 fr. 10, col. 4 Smith: 49n23 Ratae Sententiae fr. 29, cols. II–III Smith: 7n19 3: 125n40 fr. 122 Smith: 107n84 5: 31 fr. 126, cols. 1–3 Smith: 86 7: 189 New Fragment 136 Smith: 8n20 8: 6n16 New Fragment 146 Smith: 8n21 9: 26–27 12: 62 216  

Epicurus (continued) 1.4.15–16: 56 19: 70 1.15.24: 56 27: 59 Lactantius Galen Divinae Institutiones De semine 3.25:15: 98 1.16.32: 152 De usu partium Lucian 4.187.18: 152n51 Alexander 17: 195–96 Heraclitus 61: 195, 196n34 Homeric Problems Parasite 79.2: 41 10: 42 79.4: 41 10–11: 50n26 79.10: 41 11: 42

Homer Lucretius Iliad 1.54–61: 63n61 2.246–47: 188n12 1.70: 118 22.395–411: 186 1.140–42: 117 Odyssey 1.629: 26 5.305–6: 61 1.170: 118 5.388–89: 58 1.908–14: 117n24 6.3–6: 67n71 1.924: 65n66 6.102–9: 61 1.935: 4n9 6.149–52: 61 1.940: 65n66 6.200–207: 47–48 2.1: 110n4 6.274: 63 2.1–4: 58 6.321–22: 51 2.3: 110n4 7.14–77: 61 2.4: 110n4 7.32–33: 63 2.5: 110n4 7.32–37: 63 2.7: 110n4 7.81–99: 52 2.19: 61 7.100–102: 62 2.20: 6–7 7.311–24: 62 2.20–33: 51 8.246–49: 44 2.23–28: 62 8.249: 40 2.24–28: 52 9.5–11: 38n3 2.27–29: 52 9.6: 49 2.28: 66n70 9.28: 41n10 2.31: 56, 62 2.29–33: 52n30 Horace 2.34–36: 52n27 Epistulae 2.37ﬀ.: 190 1.1.4: 55 2.62–66: 64n63 1.2.29: 56, 62 2.598: 161n70   217

2.614–23: 161 Philodemus 2.967–68: 110 Epigrams 2.1117: 26 4–7: 173 3.9–10: 148 10: 173 3.27–29: 5 11: 173 3.31–40: 64n63 12: 173 3.63: 189 14: 173 3.128–29: 67 20: 173 3.214–15: 67 26: 173 3.251–55: 110 3.400–401: 67 Plato 3.455–56: 67 Respublica 3.931–77: 70 3.390a–b: 38 3.934: 70n77 Pliny 3.937: 70n77 Historia Naturalis 3.938: 70 28.39: 190n17 3.995–97: 189 35.144: 103 4.11–25: 65 4.1030–1287: 43 Plutarch 4.1049: 66 Adversus Coloten 4.1061–62: 66 1120f–1121a: 149 4.1070: 66 1122b: 28 4.1120: 66, 189 1126f: 94, 95 5.8: 196n32 De latenter vivendo 5.10–13: 58 1128c: 182 5.22–54: 122n35 1128f: 182 5.564–73: 178n2 1129a: 94, 95, 182 5.1091–1104: 26 1129d: 182, 183 5.1120–35: 189 Non posse 5.1127: 190 1086c–d: 128 5.1241–80: 26 1087b: 38, 43, 93, 128, 182, 185, 193 5.1361–78: 26 1089c: 90 5.1362: 26 1089d:126, 183 5.1392–96: 52n30 1089e: 153 5.1397: 52n30 1092e: 49n23 6.33–34: 58 1094c: 90 1094d: 94 Papyri Herculanenses (see also Philode- 1097d: 91, 92, 140 mus) 1097d–e: 92 176: 77 1097f: 49n23 1098c: 16, 183 Petronius 1100c: 129 112: 104–5 1100c–d: 1, 183–84 218  

Plutarch (continued) Tacitus 1107b: 183 Dialogus de oratoribus Quaestiones convivales 18.4–5: 187n10 635b–c: 156 635e: 157 eon Quomodo adulator ab amico in- Progymnasmata ternoscatur 71: 28, 88 55c: 32 Vita Homeri Virgil 150: 41 Aeneid 1.94–96: 61 Quintilian 1.227–29: 61 Institutio oratoria 1.315: 61 12.10.12: 187 1.338–41: 61 1.415–16: 61 Seneca 1.560–66: 61 De beneficiis 1.561–63: 63 3.4.1: 70 1.562: 61 4.2.1: 136 1.661: 63 5.17.5: 69, 70 1.686: 63 De vita beata 1.736–37: 63 7.1: 133 1.737: 65 7.3: 132, 135, 158, 162 1.745–46: 65 8.9: 123 1.749: 65 13: 1, 160, 184 4.34: 105 15.4: 111 4.38: 105 19: 70 4.67: 66 Epistulae 4.83–84: 66 6.6: 192n27 4.173: 121 12.9: 69, 71 4.379–80: 65 33: 149, 162 4.653: 68, 69, 70 88.5: 50, 57 4.704–5: 67–88 98.9: 77 9.614–20: 162 99.25: 77 12:97: 162 Catalepton Strabo 58 14.1.41: 179 General Index

Aelian, 10, 13, 22, 108, 139, 153–56, Carneades, 35, 90 163 Cassius (Gaius Cassius Longinus), 9, 10, Aeneas, 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 121 129–32, 189, 190, 191, 194 Alcinous, 40, 43, 46, 52, 54, 56, 62, 191 Catius, 130–31 Alexis (comic poet), 33–35 Cato, 58, 113–14 Amafinius, 131 Catullus, 54, 161 Amphiaraos, 101–2 Chrysippus, 34–35, 36, 41, 46, 55, 83, Apicius, 11 140–41, 146, 180 Arcesilaus, 14, 32, 37, 161, 180 Cicero, 9–11, 12–13, 35, 55, 58, 75–77, Archestratus, 36, 41, 46 78, 79, 81, 87–88, 89, 98–99, 104, Aretaeus, 152 106, 110–32, 135, 136–38, 143, 149, Arete, 52, 61–62, 123 151–53, 161, 163–77, 181, 183, 184, Aristarchus, 174 185–87, 189–91, 192, 195 Aristippus, 27, 41, 83, 111, 180 cinaedus, 179, 180 Aristophanes (of Byzantium), 36 Cleanthes, 32, 122–23, 136, 141 Aristophanes (comic poet), 20 Clement of Alexandria, 78, 89 Aristotle, 22n16, 42, 44, 45, 49n23, 91, Cleomedes, 10, 178, 179, 185, 187, 188 99 Colotes, 74, 79, 93, 94, 128, 141, 142, Asclepius, 101, 156, 195 149 Athenaeus, 15, 18–19, 20–23, 32–35, 36, Cybele, 74, 160–61, 180, 188, 194 38, 39, 41, 45, 48–49, 72, 89, 90, 91, cymbals, 129, 161 95, 102, 103, 146, 159 Cynics, 18, 35, 80, 87, 122, 146 atoms, 4, 105, 155 Cyreniacs, 27, 120, 180 baths, 7, 40, 44, 132, 158 Damoxenus, 24–31, 177, 185, 188 Batis, 77–78, 97, 107, 191 Danae (daughter of Leontion), 102, 103 Bato, 21–23, 31, 32 Demetria, 96–97, 100 Bion, 160 Democritus, 24–26, 33, 34, 35, 83, 144, Boethus, 157 196 Boidion, 92, 100–101, 140 Dido, 38, 40, 60–71, 104, 105, 121 Brutus, 12, 186 Dio Chrysostom, 129

219 220  

Diodorus (mentioned in Seneca’s De vita portraits of, 140–45, 158, 194 beata), 68–71 Eratosthenes, 47–49, 60, 63, 68, 160 Diogenes of Oenoanda, 86–88 Erotion, 89, 100, 194 dolor, 110–13, 117, 136 Euphronius, 155–56, 163 Euripides, 59, 140 Epictetus, 178, 179–81, 191 Epicureans fish, 6, 24, 32, 36, 47, 90, 120, 127, 134, alleged atheism of, 5, 29, 78n23, 158, 164 155–56 friendship, Epicurean, 4, 5, 52, 54, allegedly eﬀeminate, 157, 161, 58–60, 63, 65, 117, 166 165–66, 168, 179, 185–88, 194 (see also chap. 4) Gabinius, 168–71, 175, 176, 190, 195 as chefs, 23–30, 127, 154 Galen, 26, 152 clothing of, 157–62, 177 Greek terms as eunuchs, 14, 37, 152, 160–61, 180, οἱ ἄνδρες, 192–94 194 ἡδονή, 3–6, 46–49, 101, 109–10, 121, and food, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 122, 124–32, 152 20, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 42, 43, καταπυκνόω, 25–29 44, 51, 52, 54, 57, 62, 63, 65, 85, 87, τρυφή, 90, 129, 151 89, 90, 91, 108, 120, 140, 158, 181 φρόνησις, 24, 46–49, 60, 65 (see also fish) gait of, 165, 166, 168, 170, 176, 177 Hedeia, 89, 92, 94, 100, 101, 102, 105, illnesses of, 13, 108, 151–57 108, 140, 182, 191, 194 language of, 9, 10, 11, 20, 24–32, 34, Hegesippos, 22–23, 31 36–37, 43, 46, 60, 61, 62, 66, 83, 88, Heracles, 46, 122, 179 109, 125, 154, 185, 186, 187, 188, Heraclitus (author of Homeric Prob- 194 lems), 12, 35, 40–44, 46, 60, as letter writers, 80–88 153 portraits of, 13, 73–75, 104, 106, Herculaneum, 40, 49, 53, 77, 81, 85, 96, 140–50, 157, 163, 164, 171, 177, 106, 171, 193 194 Hermarchus, 3, 74, 76, 77, 96, 141–42, and wine, 6, 16, 21, 22, 24, 30, 31, 39, 144–45, 149, 150, 158, 192, 193, 47, 53, 54, 63, 65, 89, 90, 104, 105, 194 127, 132, 134, 140, 143, 158, 163, Hetaerae, 95–103 164, 169, 170, 172, 173, 176 Hippocrates, 152 Epicurus Homer, 4, 6, 12, 19, 38–71 passim, 140, appearance of, 13, 139–67, 176–77 186, 191 beard of, 140–41, 146–47, 158–59, Horace, 12, 40n11, 42, 55–56, 57, 62, 81, 168n90 159 clothing of, 157–62 illness of, 111, 150–54 Idomeneus, 77, 84, 96, 150, 152, 186 language of (see Epicureans: language incense, 61, 160 of) intertextuality, 9, 11, 26, 32, 40, 42–44, as letter writer, 80–86 62, 63, 66 as patriarch, 99, 145, 148, 157, 194 Iopas, 62–65   221

Lactantius, 98, 99, 106 Philemon (comic poet), 23–24 Leontion, 83, 139, 140, 142, 179, 182, Philodemus, 4, 6, 12, 14, 19, 20, 30, 45, 188, 191, 193, 194 48, 50, 53–58, 63, 68, 85, 95, 96, 97, as hetaera, 78, 80–81, 83, 89, 92, 99, 101, 106, 107, 126, 148, 153, 96n48 161, 162, 171–77, 190, 191, 192, historicity of, 108, 179 193, 194 as meretricula, 76, 95 Piso (L. Calpurnius Piso Caesonius), paintings of, 103–4 10, 114, 118, 125, 149, 166, 183–84, possible statue of, 72–75, 76–84, 190–92, 195 87–90 Cicero and, 171–77 writings of, 92, 94–97, 100 gait of, 11, 13, 166, 168–69 See also women associated with the manly appearance of, 163–65, school of Epicurus 167–71 Lucian, 13, 36, 41–42, 50n26, 180n3, Philodemus and, 53–54 195, 196 pleasure, 3–8, 20, 23, 42, 109–38 passim Lucretius, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 26, 40, 51–53, Pliny, 30, 76, 77, 103, 104, 118, 139, 140, 55n42, 56–57, 58, 60n50, 61, 143, 174, 190 62–63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 81, 110, Plotina, 107n84 117–18, 122, 131, 148, 161, 162, Plutarch, 1, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 28, 29, 32, 189, 193, 194, 196 34, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 54, 56, 59, 66, 68, 81, 90, 97, 99, Mammarion, 89, 92, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 101, 102, 106, 107, 111, 112, 117, 102, 106, 194 126, 128, 129, 139, 140, 149, 152, Metrodorus, 3, 14, 16, 30, 70, 74, 76, 153, 156, 157, 160, 181, 182, 183, 77–78, 79, 84, 89, 94, 95, 128, 141, 184, 185, 191, 192, 193, 194 142, 144–45, 149, 150, 151, 153, women associated with Epicureanism 155, 158, 192–94, 196 and, 91–95 Mys, 97n54, 99 Polyaenus, 3, 30, 88, 102, 153, 155, 186, 192, 193 Nausikaa, 38, 47, 48, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67 pudicitia, 1, 105, 119–20, 160, 165 New Comedy, 11, 19–35, 94 Pythocles, 77, 79, 80–81, 83, 84–86, 88, Nikidion, 89, 92, 96, 97, 101, 106, 108, 94 140, 191, 194 Nomentanus, 11 Quintilian, 121, 187

Odysseus, 12, 19, 38–71 passim, 187 Seneca (the Younger), 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 35, 46, 50, 51, 57, 59, 68–71, 77, 81, pain, 3, 4, 6, 8, 51, 110–12, 115–16, 125, 109, 111–12, 116, 122, 123, 131, 126, 128, 136, 150, 153, 163, 189, 132–36, 149, 158, 160–63, 184, 188, 193 192n27, 193 Pansa, 131, 132, 191 Siro, 58 Petronius, 104–5 Sisenna, 187 Phaeacians, 12, 38–71 passim, 75, 91, Socrates, 20, 27, 80, 94, 141, 173 140 Solon, 75, 80 Philainis, 179 Sotion, 33, 35, 83 222  

Stoicism, 1, 12, 17, 18, 19, 34, 35, 41, 46, Tullia, 137 48, 50, 55, 58, 60, 67, 68, 83, 85, 96, 109, 122, 123, 124, 136, 140, 141, Virgil, 12, 38, 40, 52, 58, 60–69, 71, 104, 146, 147, 149, 151, 152, 159, 160, 105, 121, 193 162, 178, 179, 180, 184, 185 virtus, as supposed opposite of voluptas, sun, the size of, 26, 31, 64, 65, 85, 139, 112–38 154, 158, 178, 183 voluptas, as supposed opposite of virtus, 112–38 tambourines, 129, 160–62 (tympana) as tendentious translation of Greek telos, 3, 5, 6, 39, 40–44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, word for “pleasure,” 124–32 57, 59, 60, 126, 178 tetrapharmakos, 3–4, 153 women associated with the school of emista, 142–43 Epicurus, 72–108 eon (Aelius eon), 28, 78, 88, Cicero and, 75–81, 87–89, 98–99, 185–86 104–6 eon (character in Plutarch’s Non as hetaerae, 12, 16, 78, 80, 83, 85–86, Posse), 90–91, 93, 128, 183–84 89, 90, 92, 94–104, 106, 108, 126, Timocrates, 14, 15, 16, 17, 36, 78, 84, 89, 173, 182, 188, 194 90, 92, 94, 96, 97, 151, 153, 154 historicity of names of, 100–103, 105 Delightful People and, 15, 16, 84, 151 Plutarch and, 91–95 Timon of Phlius, 15–19, 36, 154, 159 See also Batis; Boidion; Demetria; Torquatus, 75, 110, 111, 112, 114, 119, Hedeia; Leontion; Mammarion; 123, 124, 126, 129, 131, 132, 135, Nikidion; Philainis; Plotina; 166, 177 emista