Chapter Four

Home , Amafinius, Catius, Rabirius (Epicurean)

chapter four

LATER GENERATIONS OF THE SCHOOL

ipse Epicurus […] qui genus humanum ingenio superavit et omnis restinxit, stellas exortus ut aetherius sol (Lucretius, 3,1042–1044)

4.1. Lucretius

4.1.1. Introduction a) This next chapter in the history of the maxim λε ισας,on the views of later generations of Epicureans, will primarily deal with the Roman world. One of the most important sources, not merely for Epicureanism in Rome, but even for Epicurean philosophy as a whole, is of course Lucretius’ De rerum natura. Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to take a quick glance at Lucretius’ Roman predecessors. For despite his own claim (5,336–337), Lucretius was not the first to introduce the Romans to Epicureanism. The first contacts are much earlier1 and from the very beginning attention was also given to Epicurus’ political philosophy. As far as we know, the first contacts of the Romans with Epicure- anism date back as far as the end of the third century B.C., when C. Fabricius was sent as an envoy to Pyrrhus and was introduced in the latter’s headquarters by Cineas to Epicurus’ theology, political philosophy, and to his view on the final end (Plutarch, Pyrrh. 20,3).2 As could be expected, Fabricius’ evaluation of Epicurus’ philosophy was entirely negative (20,4). The high-spirited Roman soldier felt no need to submit himself to Epicurus’ therapeutic philosophy.

1 On the early history of Epicureanism in the Roman world, see, e.g., P. Grimal (1969); B. Gemelli (1983); M. Gigante (1983)andM.Erler(1994a), 363–368. 2 Cf. also Cicero, Cato 43 and Valerius Maximus 4,3,6, who both focus on Epicurus’ doctrine of pleasure, omitting his theology and political philosophy. 84 chapter four

More than a century later, Rome was directly confronted with the concrete praxis of Epicurus’ political philosophy. In 155B.C., the Epi- cureans did not participate in the famous Athenian embassy of philoso- phers. Their absence was a statement in itself, which later attracted Cicero’s attention (Att. 12,23,2). Unfortunately, the precise background of the Epicureans’ decision not to participate is unknown. They may have weighed the pros and cons against each other and decided that the matter was after all not important enough to disturb their tranquil- lity of mind, but it is equally possible that the state decided to exclude them from the embassy, even though they were basically prepared to participate in it. Around the same moment, Alcius and Philiscus were banished from Rome “because of the pleasures they introduced” (δι’ lς ε>σηγντ #δνς; Athenaeus, 12,547a; cf. also Aelian, VH 9,12). The first real breakthrough of Epicureanism in Rome seems to have been brought about by authors like Amafinius, Rabirius, and Catius. According to Cicero, Amafinius’ work was elementary and untechnical (ac. 1,5), aroused the interest of the multitude (Tusc. 4,6), and was particularly successful (Tusc. 4,7: Italiam totam occupaverunt). Even if it is the communis opinio that Cicero’s words on the great success of Amafinius’ works should be nuanced to a certain extent, Amafinius usually continues to be regarded as a popularising author who wrote for a wide audience of readers. I think this communis opinio should be reconsidered. For it is far from certain whether an Epicurean philosopher such as Amafinius indeed wished to reach such a broad reading public,3 and whether the degree of literacy in Rome was such at that moment that his work could even have been read by many people.4 I think it is more likely that Amafinius primarily addressed the intellectual upper-class rather than the common people. This is not to deny that his work was uncom- plicated, but this general character of his writings should be explained by the vacuum concerning Greek philosophy which existed in Rome at that time (cf. Cicero, Tusc. 4,6), rather than by the low intellectual level

3 According to Epicurus, the sage can found a school, but not in order to draw a crowd (Diog. Laert. 10,120 =fr.564 Us.); cf. supra, 2.3.2.2c. 4 Cf. W.V.Harris (1989), 227: “There was no such thing as ‘popular literature’ in the Roman Empire, if that means literature which became known to tens or hundreds of thousands of people by means of personal reading. […] As for works written expressly for the masses, there were none.”; for some critical observations on Harris’ view, see N. Horsfall (1991).