Cives Epicurei
In the preface to Tusculan Disputations 4 Cicero points out that the first books of philosophy in Latin were written by the Epicurean Gaius Amafinius, and that after him many rival Epicureans wrote a multitude of works and ‘have occupied all of Italy' (Italiam totam occupaverunt; Tusc.
4.6-7). According to Cicero, the Epicurean doctrine was successful among the multitude [multitudo] and theunlearned [indocti] since it was easy to learn, because they were enticed by the coaxing charms of pleasure, or even because nothing better had been offered to them (Tusc. 4.7). Cicero excludes Epicureanism from the category of ‘true and elegant philosophy' [verae elegantisque philosophiae] which originated with Socrates and was preserved among the Peripatetics, the Stoics, and the Academics ( Tusc. 4.6). He includes himself among the latter, so that in the preface to Tusculan Disputations 4 he promotes himself as the representative in Rome of the true and elegant Greek philosophy, as opposed to the preceding success of the clumsy works of Amafinus and his Epicurean aemuli (Tusc. 4.6; see also Fin. 2.12). Cicero does not exaggerate when he speaks of the early spread of Epicureanism in Italy. However, the information he gives at the beginning of Tusc. 4 is scanty, as he only refers to the works of Gaius Amafinius and his anonymous aemuli.63 Certainly, Alcius and Philiscus already taught Epicureanism in Rome in the second half of the second century âñ, as later M. Pompilius Andronicus did, both in Rome and in Campania, where Siro and Philodemus also taught.
To be sure, the best-known work of Roman Epicureanism is Lucretius' On the Nature of Things, but two other Epicurean authors, D. Catius Insuber and Egnatius, also wrote works with the same title. Rabirius is another Epicurean writer in Italy from the first half of the first century â ñ.
The presence of Epicurean teachers and authors in Italy is early, and their activity continued throughout the first century âñ. The same can be said of the involvement of Roman politicians with Epicureanism, the first of whom we know is Titus Albucius. Albucius, a perfectus epicureus according to Cicero, belonged to a senatorial family and was praetor in 107 âñ. After a trial for concussio, i.e. an illegal exaction of taxes he was condemned to exile in Athens, where he had already travelled as a young man to study philosophy, a practice that would spread throughout the first century âñ among the Roman upper classes. Cicero, Atticus and Lucius Saufeius, for example, studied in Athens with the Epicurean scholar Phaedrus. Albucius is the first of a long list of Roman politicians linked to Epicureanism. Momigliano began the prosopography of these politicians in a review of Farrington's Science and Politics in the Ancient World. In Farrington's view, Tusc. 4. 6-7 (and Fin. 2.44) provides evidence that Epicureanism constituted in Italy a ‘mass movement of lower-class people discussing among themselves the undistinguished writings of their plebeian school of thought’.64 Momigliano countered with the argument that Epicureanism actually spread among the upper classes of Rome, a thesis shared by most later interpreters.65 Castner, Benferhat, Gilbert, Valachova, Volk and Roskam have continued the prosopography begun by Momigliano without reaching a unanimous list of Epicurean politicians.66 The reasons are understandable. Firstly, we are not dealing with the cultural and social sphere of the polis, nor with philosophers or professors, but with members of Roman society immersed in specific social and political practices in which it is difficult to determine the scope, or truth, of their association with Epicureanism.67 In fact, the traditional absolutization of the slogans ascribed to the Epicureans (‘do not participate in politics', ‘live unnoticed') has led some interpreters to see the adherence of the Roman politicians to Epicureanism as mere frivolity or as subject to a complete separation of life and doctrine. Secondly, it is hard to prove the dependence of Roman politicians' affiliations, decisions and justifications on their presumed Epicureanism: even if we have evidence, speculation is always necessary. As we have already underlined, Epicureanism is too general in its approach to offer unambiguous guidelines for behaviour in particular situations. Precisely by placing prudence at the centre of its doctrine (Epicurus, LM 132), it implies a flexibility that does not exclude the conduct of its followers in accordance with the mos maiorum6 The difficulties indicated above show that the association of Roman politicians with Epicureanism must be decided in detail on a case-by-case basis, as Gilbert has highlighted.69 Fortunately, there is considerably more information about their political actions than there is about the Epicureans of the Greek cities. Illustrious Epicureans were involved in the most important political events in Rome in the first century âñ, and were in one way or another related to Cicero. They have therefore been the subject of numerous studies. The elements gathered together make their Epicureanism and the Epicurean imprint of various orientations and decisions in their lives plausible. We shall limit ourselves to a brief presentation of three examples: Trebatius Testa, Pomponius Atticus and Cassius Longinus. We will complete our account with a brief reference to a work by Philodemus (On the Good King According to Homer), which is of special interest for the study of Epicureanism and politics.Trebatius Testa was one of the most renowned jurists of his time. He began his career under the protection of Cicero, who recommended him to Caesar. Trebatius joined Caesar in Gaul in 54 âñ. In a letter from February 53 Cicero tells Trebatius that he knows he has become an Epicurean, and reproaches him that being an Epicurean contradicts his status as a politician and jurist (Fam. 2.12 1).70 We do not know how Trebatius replied, but several facts in his biography highlight the arguments by which an Epicurean could have responded to Cicero.
Trebatius did not want to pursue a political career (in fact he refused the office of military tribune offered to him by Caesar in 54, which annoyed Cicero).However, he was able to make the most of his talent as a jurist and became Caesar's adviser and familiaris. Trebatius, as Benferhat points out, got through the civil war without compromising himself or becoming a victim.71 He was also valued as a jurisconsult by Augustus. It could perhaps be said that Trebatius, without aspiring to power or office, enjoyed fame and prestige, which provided him with security until his death in his eighties. In the aforementioned letter of February 53, Cicero is particularly emphatic in questioning how an Epicurean could devote himself to law. It is one of Cicero's anti-Epicurean arguments that most clearly reveals his omission of the central tenets of Epicureanism, for, as we have shown, the Epicureans developed a sophisticated defence of justice and law. One of the testimonies of Trebatius' activity as a jurisconsult reflects just the kind of argument one would expect from an Epicurean jurist: the insistence on the utility of law. When Augustus consulted jurists on whether the use of codicils was in accordance with the ratio iuris, Trebatius convinced the emperor that it was by claiming that, in effect, the codicil was most useful and necessary for the citizens [utilissimum et necessarium hoc civibus esse].72
Titus Pomponius Atticus belonged to the ancient and illustrious gens Pomponia and was one of the wealthiest Romans of his time. He was a banker, landowner, publisher, and was associated with the most prominent members of the Roman elite. These are certainly not the kind of biographical traits usually associated with an Epicurean. For some interpreters they are consistent with only a superficial adherence to Epicureanism.73 Nepos wrote a biography of Atticus, and Cicero includes him several times in his philosophical works. A large volume of letters addressed by Cicero to Atticus has also survived.
From this literature no clear picture emerges of Atticus' Epicureanism. Perhaps this is because Atticus himself was involved in the elaboration of his own image, for he was not only a friend of Nepos and Cicero but also their editor.74 The epistolary genre of antiquity also responds to particular codes that call for caution in assessing the evidence it provides.75 As Benferhat and Gilbert have pointed out, Atticus' presence seems to be familiar in certain texts, but at the same time he remains absent, ‘masked' as it were.76 Nevertheless, Cicero's dialogues and correspondence contain elements that make Atticus' Epicureanism plausible. He studied with the Epicurean scholar Phaedrus and was closely associated with his successor Patro and the Athenian Epicurean community at large, which he supported financially. Cicero's correspondence shows that Atticus was well acquainted with Epicureanism. It also highlights how their respective philosophical convictions played a key role in the epistolary exchange around the turbulent political events of the time. Atticus' life has characteristics that can be reconciled with an Epicurean orientation: he did not opt for the cursus honorum and skilfully and courteously declined various offers of office. He stayed away from political involvement, but was a shrewd adviser, private procurator and generous benefactor of politicians and relatives of politicians belonging to distinct factions. His immense resources and the extensive networks woven by his interests, as well as an extraordinary cultivation of friendship,77 seem to have enabled Atticus to cope with very turbulent times, preserve his security, and even increase his fortune and die an octogenarian, like Trebatius. The testimonies agree on his love of his studies, the Greek language, and culture, and emphasize his affable and simple way of life.If Atticus represented what Benferhat calls ‘neutralite vigilante, Cassius Longinus played a leading role in one of the major political events of the first century âñ: the assassination of Caesar in March 44.78 Between December 46 and January 45 Cicero and Cassius exchanged a series of letters in which they discussed political events and their respective philosophical convictions.79 Cassius recognizes himself to be, and is treated as, an Epicurean, and Cicero does not miss the opportunity to address several anti-Epicurean arguments to him.
There is one, which we have analysed above, which is of particular interest due to Cassius’ response. Cicero refers to their common Epicurean friend Pansa, and says that both the latter’s noble deeds and those of Cassius himself prove that they are both better than the egoistic hedonistic philosophy they subscribe to. Cassius’ response is remarkable for the knowledge he depicts of Epicurean doctrine. Cassius complains about the deficient interpretations of Epicurus by Amafinius and Catius, quotes Epicurus’ PD 5 in Greek, and makes Cicero see that his attempt to undermine the compatibility of pleasure, virtue and justice is based on a deficient and biased understanding of Epicureanism. Cassius stresses that living pleasurably and attaining tranquillity is not in contradiction with living justly and nobly, but implies living justly and nobly (Ad Fam. 216.19). According to Seneca (Ep. 83, 12), Cassius drank water throughout his life. He was a great military man, and that is probably why, after supporting Pompey, he obtained Caesar’s pardon and seconded him, perhaps convinced that he represented a hope for peace and tranquillity, values dear to an Epicurean.80As stated above, it is hard to prove the dependence of Roman politicians’ decisions on their presumed Epicureanism. We are in the same situation, despite some famous interpretative attempts,81 with Cassius’ decision to kill Caesar, given the link between Caesarism and Epicureanism that some interpreters maintain. This link, as already noted in Momigliano’s review of Farrington,82 has played an important role in the prosopography of Roman politicians linked to Epicureanism. It has also influenced the interpretation of Philodemus' On the Good King According to Homer, as some scholars, such as Grimal,83 have argued that it represents a defence of Caesarism. This work is dedicated to Piso just as Philodemus' Rhetoric is dedicated to Pansa, another Caesarist.
However, the purpose of On the Good King According to Homer is more general. This treatise of Philodemus seems properly to constitute an Epicurean contribution to the literary genre of the Hellenistic treatises on kingship [περt βασιλεfας]. Most Hellenistic philosophical schools contributed to this literary genre. Also, among Epicurus' works, one is entitled On Kingship (DL 10.28).84 The Hellenistic treatises περι, βασιλεfας do not deal with the different forms of government, nor do they try to defend monarchy as the best form of government. They expound on a good king's qualities, virtues and conduct. Philodemus uses Homer for this purpose. According to him, participating in politics [πολιτευεσθαι] includes the following activities: leading the state, giving advice, serving as an envoy, and being experienced in such things as laws and decrees ( On Rhetoric 3, ed. Hammerstaedt, col. xa, 1-6) and administering the state (col. xia, 17-24). It is easy to see that the activities of the Epicureans mentioned in the present chapter are included in Philodemus' enumeration. However, Philodemus insists in this same work that politics constitutes a specific domain with its own characteristic activities. Politics and philosophy move in different terrains. Politics, in his view, is based on experience and talent. Philodemus polemicizes against the Stoic Diogenes of Babylon who, according to Philodemus, does not grasp the autonomy of politics. The Stoics maintain that politics and philosophy are connected and, consequently, claim that only the Stoic sage is a good statesman.85 The position of Philodemus and Epicureanism in general does not imply the absolute disqualification of politicians entailed by this Stoic thesis. The recognition of the autonomy of politics allows Philodemus to defend politicians from the attacks of Diogenes of Babylon.86 The question then arises as to how the Epicurean philosopher can be useful and advise the ruler. Philodemus' On the Good King According to Homer, perhaps like Epicurus' On Kingship, appears to provide an answer to this question. Although philosophy and politics are two different fields with their own features and operating modes, philosophy can improve the moral character of the ruler and thus notably contribute to better government, which is in the interest of the ruler, the ruled and, ultimately, the Epicurean sage and the wider Epicurean community. In fact, as we have shown, the Vita Philonidis ( PHerc. 1044) highlights Philonides' contribution to the good government of king Demetrius, and the latter's support for the Epicurean community. As observed by Fish, it could even be argued that the Epicureans saw in the figure of a monarch enlightened by Epicureanism an exceptional example of security, provided by the exercise of power.87
Philodemus points out in two parallel passages of On Rhetoricss that philosophy can represent for a politician a significant contribution to make him ‘a more vividly and energetically good man' and will make a sky-high [ουρανομηκη] difference for the better. This is not a personal opinion, for Philodemus introduces it as the opinion of ‘us', i.e. the Epicureans. Moreover, as Armstrong has indicated, both passages echo approaches by Metrodorus.89 The virtues recommended to the monarch in On the Good King According to Homer are practically those of the Epicurean sage. Their result is also similar: on the one hand, the stability [ευσταθεια] of the sage (on this point see chapter 2 above); on the other, a stable monarchy that Philodemus contrasts with a despotic regime based on terror (col. xxiv, 17-18). The main quality of a good monarch is prudence. Philodemus stresses the following virtues of the ruler: mildness [πραoτης], equity [επιε(κεια], gentleness [ημερoτης ], indulgence [συγγωμη] and benevolence [ευνοια] (col. xxiv, 6-18, col 25, 11-19). The inclusion of equity is very significant as it is consistent with the Epicurean conception of laws. For Epicurus, as we have already shown, laws are just insofar as they are useful, and equity certainly complements the law in order to achieve justice.90 Philodemus argues that philosophers can also be of great help to their homelands by teaching the young to obey the laws, such laws having been established for their security. As already indicated in chapter 3 (section 3), Philodemus states that it is also necessary to teach children never to touch injustice, just as they are taught never to touch fire since both injustice and fire are ‘destructive by nature' (oλεθριοι φυσει) (On Rhetoric, PHerc. 1078/1080, fr. 13.9-22, 2.155, ed. Sudhaus). Philodemus' On Rhetoric and On the Good King According to Homer thus adds to the defence of positive law, pragmatism and moderation, derived from Epicurean study of nature, to paint a picture of the interaction of Epicurus and the Epicureans and their political communities that is far more complex and interesting than the one put forth by his opponents.
5