Among Friends: Cicero and the Epicureans by Nathan Gilbert A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Classics University of Toronto © Copyright by Nathan Gilbert 2015 ii Among Friends: Cicero and the Epicureans Nathan Gilbert Doctor of Philosophy Department of Classics University of Toronto 2015 In my dissertation I explain Cicero’s philosophical works through an analysis of his epistolary interactions and literary rivalries with Roman Epicureans. I argue that this historical and intellectual context reveals how Cicero’s overt and consistent anti-Epicurean polemics constitute a fundamental organizing principle of his philosophical works; Epicureanism is the philosophical Other against which the dialogues define themselves. The first two chapters of my thesis reconstruct Cicero’s social and friendship networks of Roman Epicureans and literary rivals; to that end I offer a series of prosopographical charts designed to replace the now dated Prosopography of Roman Epicureans by Catherine Castner. The second half of my thesis uses this background to explain the development and recurring polemical goals of Cicero’s philosophical works. More specifically, the third chapter begins to build my larger claim that his epistolary interactions with Epicureans over the course of twenty years offered him the opportunity to hone his argumentative technique and experiment with various translations into Latin of Greek philosophical ideas. In my final two chapters I offer the first comprehensive reading of Cicero’s exchange with Cassius in 46-45 BCE (Ad Fam. 15.16-19) and argue that these letters allow us to trace the development of individual arguments and polemical strategies in the dialogues of later that year, especially De Finibus I-II. My dissertation therefore stands at the intersection of literary, philosophical, and historical scholarship. I engage with and enrich recent work in Republican epistolary iii practice, the cultural politics of Ciceronian prefaces, the influence of Epicurean ideas on Latin poetry, and the renewed interest in Philodemus, Hellenistic philosophy, Roman Epicureanism, and Cicero as a philosopher. iv Acknowledgements The advice, kindness and time of many scholars and friends have made a positive and lasting impact on my dissertation; it is a great pleasure to finally acknowledge in writing their contributions. Above all I owe a debt a gratitude to my supervisor, Brad Inwood. Despite his many professional and scholarly obligations, he invariably found time to meet, read chapters, and offer criticism and support; his supervision went far beyond the requirements of his job. More generally, his ability to provide sharp criticism in a non-polemical spirit, his willingness to entertain disagreement, and his unique combination of training in Classics and philosophy represent an ideal of scholarship to which I can only aspire. I also owe hearty thanks to Rachel Barney, who stuck with me even as I crossed time and space to work on Cicero instead of the sophists. Her incisive writing feedback in the early years of my graduate studies and her later criticisms of my thesis chapters not only increased the quality of my dissertation but also made me a much better writer. I am grateful to the other members of my committee, Christer Bruun and John Magee, for making time to work with me while they were either on leave or serving as departmental chairs. I profited greatly from discussions with David Armstrong and Pamela Gordon; both were kind enough to share with me their unpublished work. Thanks also to Katharina Volk, who likewise shared her unpublished work. I am furthermore grateful to Adriana Brook, Marion Durand, John MacCormick, and Larkin Philpot—my brothers and sisters in graduate arms—for their detailed advice, editorial and otherwise. Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my father, Jeff (1951-2005): while I am not sure he would have enjoyed reading it, I know without a doubt that he would have been very proud that I had written it. v Table of Contents Introduction: Cicero, Epicurus, and Roman Epicureanism………………………….. 1-12 Part I: Historical and Social Background Chapter I: “The Epicureans have taken over all of Italy”…………………… 13-77 Chapter II: Cicero’s Epicurean Friends, Teachers and Correspondents…….. 78-115 Part II: Epistolary Debates and Cicero’s Philosophical Works Chapter III: Anti-Epicurean Polemics in the Letters………………………... 116-163 Chapter IV: Epicureanism in Ad Familiares 15.16-19, Part I………………. 164-220 Chapter V: Epicureanism in Ad Familiares 15.16-19, Part II……………… 221-283 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………… 284-286 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………. 287-305 Figure I: Roman Epicureans, 155-43 B.C…………………………………………… 112-114 Figure II: Cicero’s Epicurean Intellectual Network…………………………………. 115 1 Introduction: Cicero, Epicurus, and Roman Epicureans Ante lucem cum scriberem contra Epicureos, de eodem oleo et opera exaravi nescio quid ad te et ante lucem dedi. Before dawn while I was writing against the Epicureans, by the same oil and effort I scribbled a note and sent it to you before dawn. (Ad Atticum 13.38 = SB 341, mid-August, 45 B.C.)1 That Cicero was consistently unsympathetic or even openly hostile to Epicurean philosophy is not a particularly surprising claim, nor is such a claim new.2 Philosophical authors before and after Cicero’s time routinely included in their works scathing passages of polemic against Epicureanism, whose scandalous account of the gods and shocking egoistic hedonism made the school a common enemy of Peripatetics, Platonists, and Stoics.3 That Cicero, a committed Academic Skeptic,4 took part in this polemical tradition and devoted 1 For the letters, I have followed the translations of Shackleton Bailey’s Cambridge editions, though with modifications, particularly on philosophical matters. I have also followed Smith and Rouse 1992 for Lucretius, and Brittain 2006 for the Academica, again sometimes with modifications. All other translations are my own unless otherwise noted. All dates are B.C. unless otherwise noted. 2 E.g. Reid 1885: 19; D’Anna 1965: 7-22; Gorman 2005: 97; Maso 2008; Brunt 2012: 181. A few scholars have seen a development in Cicero’s hostility (notably Howe 1951 and Maslowski 1985), but their views have failed to gain traction: see further Chapter I, section iii.B. 3 Early evidence is fragmentary; the best and most complete examples of this polemical tradition postdate Cicero. Arrian included two short anti-Epicurean lectures of the Stoic Epictetus in his Discourses (2.20, 3.7); Plutarch wrote three lengthier treatises with similar goals (It is impossible to live pleasantly according to Epicurus; Against Colotes; Is “live unknown” a wise precept?; cf. On Affection for Offspring); and while Seneca had nice things to say about Epicurus in the first thirty or so letters of the Epistulae Morales, the violence of his polemics in Book IV of De Beneficiis reveals a very different view (cf. Inwood 2005: 16). But this hostility was much older and predated Cicero. See e.g. SVF 1.553 and 3.709 (Cleanthes and Chrysippus, respectively); cf. all the lively Hellenistic slander documented in Epicurus’ vita in D.L. 10. Academic skeptics also took aim at Epicurus: e.g. Carneades’ thought experiment, reported by Cicero at Fin. 2.59, has an anti- Epicurean thrust; Arcesilaus pulled no punches when he compared Epicureans to eunuchs (D.L. 4.43). 4 This thesis works under the assumption that Cicero was a life-long and committed Academic skeptic. Some scholars (notably Glucker 1988 and Steinmetz 1989) have argued for a temporary lapse to the school of Antiochus of Ascalon. However, Görler 1995 has offered persuasive refutations of their arguments (the reservations of Dolganov 2008: 36 do not convince), and Schofield 2008 has shown how deeply Cicero’s Academic views structured and influenced almost all of his philosophical work (cf. Schofield 2013 and Fox 2007). See Brittain 2001 on Cicero’s teacher Philo and Academic skepticism more generally; and Brittain 2 energy to refuting Epicurus’ doctrines in his published5 philosophical works6 therefore seems only natural. This, of course, does not mean that Cicero’s disdain for the school is uninteresting, and as such scholars have been examining his arguments against various Epicurean positions in ethics and physics for some time now, both in order to better understand Cicero’s own ideas and to establish his value as a source for Epicurean doctrine,7 for which his treatises are especially important.8 This study approaches his opposition to Epicureanism from a very different perspective. I seek to explain the development of Cicero’s philosophica, including his translations of Greek technical language, his general strategies of philosophical and literary polemics, and even individual arguments in his treatises through an analysis of his epistolary interactions with his Roman Epicurean contemporaries and through his literary rivalries with early authors of Epicurean treatises in Latin. My approach, then, is sociological and consequently relies heavily on the ability of his letters to document his social networks of Epicurean acquaintences as well as his philosophical debates with them. This approach is an 2006: xi-xii for a brief, sensible reading of Cicero’s stance. A continued skeptical allegiance is now generally accepted. 5 By “publication” I mean to refer only to an author’s decision to have a work distributed, often informally, beyond a small circle of friends or a single addressee. For discussion of the dissemination of ancient literary works, see Starr 1987, Murphy 1998, Steel 2005: 10-13, and Johnson 2011: 52-6. 6 For simplicity I use the terms “philosophical works,” “philosophica,” and “dialogues” interchangeably; I intend these phrases to include all of Cicero’s published treatises with the exception of the rhetorical works (i.e. Inv., De Or., Brutus, Orator), speeches, poems, and translations. I readily admit that this is an artificial category (Cicero, for example, includes his rhetorical works in his philosophical catalogue in the preface to Div.