Epicurus' attitude to Democritus

PAMELA M. HUBY

It has been widely, though not universally, held that Epicurus had a pathological unwillingness to admit that he was indebted to any teacher or predecessor, and that this extended even to Democritus, from whom he had taken the greater part of his own physical theory.' The evidence is, however, flimsy, and I hope to show that it can be explained better on the supposition that Epicurus departed from Democritus' views on one or two specific points, and, like any other philosopher, criticised him where he thought he was mistaken, but seldom went beyond what was, and is, permissible in philosophical arguments.2 Since nearly every piece of evidence we have can be interpreted in more than one way, I shall consider each in turn. 1) Diogenes Laertius (X 8) in the course of a survey of the attacks that have been made on Epicurus, covering his life, his philosophy, and his relations with other people, cites, from Timocrates, a list of abusive epithets applied by him to other philosophers. Among these is 'Lerocritus' for Democritus. Timocrates was a renegade disciple of Epicurus who gathered together a mass of picturesque calumny to discredit his former master, and such a source is automatically suspect.3 Indeed Diogenes himself devalues the evidence by saying at the end of his survey, 'But these calumniators are mad.' But we may accept that Epicurus did indeed once call Democritus 'Lerocritus' and that this word, which means something like 'Judge of Nonsense', was regarded as pejorative. Beyond that we know nothing, 4 though I shall make a suggestion about its context later on.4 2) Cicero touches on this subject in three places: a) De Nat. Deor, I 33 93. This book contains a discussion on the gods between the Epicurean Velleius and the sceptical Academic Cotta. Velleius is presented as a typical member of his school, who uses forceful language about other philosophers, including Democritus. Cotta in reply praises his clarity and elegance of style, and opposes him in a similarly outspoken vein. The passage that interests us is a digression with little connexion with the main argument. It serves to discredit the Epicureans by listing the attacks made by them on their opponents in both earlier and modern periods, including here Velleius himself. Epicurus is accused of a number of such unworthy pieces of behaviour, among which it is claimed that in

80 Democritum ipsum, quem secutus est, fuerit ingratus. Compared with other statements, like Aristotelem vexarit contumeliosissime this is a moderate claim.5 b) Tusc. Disp. I 34, 82: fac enim sic animum interire, ut corpus: num igitur aliquis dolor, aut omnino post mortem sensus in corpore est? Nemo id quidem dicit: etsi Democritum insimulet Epicurus, Democritici negant. By using the word insimulet Cicero here seems to be claiming not merely that Epicurus attributed the view that there was sensation in the body after death to Democritus, but also that Democritus did not hold it, and would have been foolish if he had done so, and that Epicurus was behaving badly in making such a charge against him. But there is some evidence6 that Democritus did hold views which might be interpreted in this way, and called attention to the gradual loss of warmth in a dead body, to the growth of nails and hair after death, and to the difficulty of deciding the exact moment of death. It may indeed be the case that, in Guthrie's words, Epicurus "misrepresented Democritus' scientific caution", but, in view of Cicero's usual attitude to the Epicureans, it is equally possible that Cicero is here misrepresenting Epicurus' careful phlosophical arguments. c) Perhaps the most important passages are De Finibus I, 6, 21 and I, 8, 28, for here Cicero uses the dialogue form to give us both unsympathetic and sympathetic views of the same matter. In the first passage, in his own person, as an opponent of the Epicureans, he lists the debts of Epicurus to Democritus in physics and the differences between them, and adds quae (features of Democritus' system) etsi mihi nullo modo probantur, tamen Democritum, laudatum a ceteris, ab hoc qui eum unum secutus est, nollem vituperatum. To this Torquatus, the defender of Epicurus, replies: De physicis alias... probabo, et Democriti errata ab Epicuro reprehensa et correcta permulta. It perhaps needs saying that vituperatum is a much milder word than the English 'vituperate', and merely means 'find fault with'.7 Cicero in this passage is objecting even to this, but he does then allow Torquatus to describe the same activites by the words 'errata... reprehensa et correcta. And in a passage that comes between the end of his own speech and the beginning of that of Torquatus (I, 8, 27) reprehensiones are said to be acceptable: Cicero has been reproved by Torquatus for his criticism of Epicurus and defends himself for speaking his mind, adding, quamobrem dissentientium inter se reprehensiones non sunt vituperandae: maledicta, contumeliae, tum iracundiae, contentiones, concertationesque in disputando pertinaces, indignae mihi philosphia videri solent. One may conclude that while Epicurus did infeed find fault with some aspects of Democritus'

81