Epicurus and Athens: Life and testament

The way of life of those who adhered to Epicureanism over more than five centuries and in cultural spheres as diverse as the Greek cities and the Roman world did not follow a single model.

The lives of those who called themselves ‘Epicureans' and were recognized as such by their fellow citizens constitute the ostensible historical reality of Epicureanism in the Greek cities. Rather than reporting this reality, the opponents of Epicureanism were more interested in disqualifying the doctrine, and behaved in this respect somewhat like mute or malicious witnesses, especially with regard to the interaction between the Epicureans and their cities. As suggested in the previous chapters, the malicious interpretation of slogans such as ‘live unnoticed' and ‘do not participate in politics' practically denied such interaction. The opponents of the Epicureans only refer to it by sporadic examples when they can use them to criticize Epicurean philosophy or to show the alleged disagreement between Epicurean life and Epicurean doctrine. Obviously, no reliable picture of the interaction between the Epicureans and their cities can be derived from this interpretative approach. Fortunately, we have other more benevolent, reasonable and reliable sources at our disposal.

In On Piety (col. lii, 1512-1532), Philodemus notes that while some philosophers were exiled, persecuted and even condemned to death, Epicurus remained ‘magnificently' [μεγαλομερως ] in the city and was not even mocked by the comedy writers.

Epicurus shares in the rejection of two figures who represent contempt for the laws of the polis: the tyrant and the Cynics (DL 9.119). Indeed, love of country, concern for reputation (‘insofar as this ensures that he is not despised'; DL 10.120a), care for patrimony, and concern for the future differentiate Epicurean life from the shamelessness, cosmopolitanism, mendacity and disinterest of the Cynics. It is not difficult to see that each of these Epicurean concerns entails immersion in legality and in the social relations and institutions that shape the polis. Clay highlighted a very significant example: Epicurus is the only philosopher we know who deposited his texts in the city's archive, the Metroon. Interestingly, Clay also underlines that Epicurus is the only Greek philosopher whose works are dated by the year of the eponymous archon in which they were written.²⁴ Diogenes Laertius (10.9-10) stresses Epicurus' love for his homeland (which he describes as ‘indescribable'; αλεκτος) and his piety, as well as his good character and philanthropy, which earned him many friends.

Epicurus' prolific correspondence evinces the plurality and heterogeneity of his friendships;²⁵ indeed, among Epicurus' friends there were influential politicians who were close (even very close) to Epicureanism, such as Idomeneus, a prominent politician of Lampsacus, and Mithras, Lysimachus' minister of finance who provided financial aid to the Garden. His homeland seems to have dedicated statues to Epicurus (DL 10.9), apparently with public funds. If Epicurus not only respected the cult of the gods, but also organized certain important aspects of his life and school according to the Athenian laws (laws regulating actions such as the legal mechanisms of inheritance), it is counter-intuitive and probably a rhetorical exaggeration to claim, as Plutarch does, that Epicurus and his disciple Metrodorus ‘banished laws and forms of government', and thus consequently ‘banished human life' ( Col. 1127D).

Epicurus' will, quoted by Cicero (Fin. 2.101) and transmitted by Diogenes Laertius (DL 10.16-21), is a remarkable document that shows Epicurus' connection with the polis; it also provides an interesting example of the economic and legal relations between Athenian citizens and foreign residents.²⁶ The will links the Athenian legal system with a central theme of Epicurus' philosophy: the attitude towards death. Cicero emphasizes the fact that Epicurus is inconsistent in the act of making a will, since he maintains that death is nothing to us (Epicurus, LM 124-125) and what happens after it does not concern us (Cicero, Fin. 2.101). Warren supports Cicero and claims that Epicurus cannot justify from his philosophy the decision to leave a will. If Cicero and Warren were right ( quod non, in our opinion), it seems that Epicurus' consistent position would be not to make a will. For his part, Warren concludes that Epicurus makes his will only to ensure the continuity of the Garden and because of his respect for the laws and customs, which he recommends observing for the sake of tranquillity.²⁷

Now, Athenian law does indeed regulate the succession of property, but it does not make it compulsory to make a will; in other words, not making a will in no way entails breaking the law for an Athenian citizen.

The first interesting point that emerges from the will is that it does not, as Warren argues, have a single purpose. It features one of the fundamental motivations of Athenian inheritance law: to ensure the continuity of the cult of the family ancestors (DL 10.18). It also incorporates testamentary provisions to ensure the maintenance of Metrodorus' and Polyneus' children. Furthermore, it establishes provisions to ensure the dowry and the marriage of the latter's daughter and the emancipation of three slaves and a female slave (DL 10.19; 21). Additionally, Epicurus also incorporates several provisions aimed at the continuity and cohesion of the Garden, so that its members and the Garden itself are preserved in the most secure manner ασφαλεστατον. He also instructs his disciples to preserve his memory and that of Metrodorus after his death (DL 10.18), and places all his books in the hands of Hermarchus (DL 10.17; 21). Two details clearly show what we might term Epicurus' ‘juridical zeal'. On the one hand, he goes to the unusual lengths of depositing a copy of the will in the city archive, the Metroon. In fact, it is the only private document deposited in the Metroon that we know of. Most likely, as Sickinger suggests,²⁹ the decision reflects a desire to shield the document with greater security than is provided by the usual deposit in private hands. As already noted above, Epicurus had no children and perhaps thought that succession claims might arise.

The concern for the preservation of the Garden is not the only motive of Epicurus' will. Affection, friendship, gratitude, philanthropy, piety, to which we have referred above (and which occupied such an important place both in the Epicurean narrative and in the ideal of philosophical life), and respect for the social relations of the polis are motives acknowledged in the testament. If this is so, it seems excessive and probably erroneous to claim, as Warren does, that none of these motives can be justified philosophically at all because Epicurus holds that death is nothing to us and what happens after it is of no concern to us. It follows from this interpretation that, according to Epicurean philosophy, making a will is as incoherent as fearing death and Tartarus. However, the decision to make a will is consistent with the postulates of Epicurean philosophy concerning property and friendship;³² and, once again, it also shows Epicurus' close attachment to his city.

The Epicurean sage, unlike the Cynic, is concerned with property and the future; he sees property and the security of the polis as a legitimate means of reinforcing tranquillity and minimizing fear (DL 10.120a; Epicurus, V^rS 41).

To make a will is a singular act; it presupposes the acquisition and continuous possession of property. Epicurus' testament reflects the recognition his philosophy accords to the security provided by the polis and friendship and, above all, to the benefit resulting from both these things, which as we showed above is of enormous importance to Epicureans since it leads to a state of confidence [θαρρεtν], of tranquillity [ησυχ(α], and of absence of fear [αφοβ(α] regarding the future satisfaction of needs. In making his will, Epicurus is aware that the fulfilment of his last wishes is exposed to fortune; in LM 131 he argues that, if one accustoms oneself to a frugal diet, one can optimise one's health, become diligent for the necessary activities of daily life, and dispose oneself in the best possible way when one relates to sumptuous things and prepares oneself to be ‘free from fear before fortune. Fortune, then, can sometimes have a devastating influence on one's life; but one way to neutralize it is to be able to eliminate fear, a crucial task in becoming an Epicurean sage and an idea that Cicero objects to in Tusc. 5.26. It is not the case that the Epicurean sage is completely free from the vicissitudes of fortune; strictly speaking, Epicurus claims instead that he is little favoured by it, but his reason provides him with the greatest and most valuable goods (cf. PD 16).

Epicurus trusts that his testamentary dispositions will be fulfilled and will have the intended consequences. The basis of his trust is the legal system of the polis, since the security of the polis has made his way of life and the Garden possible. No doubt Epicurus also relies on it to secure both the Epicurean life of his friends and successors and the dissemination of his writings and teachings, a central aspect of Epicurean philanthropy that is so amply evidenced by Epicurus' prolific epistolary activity (something which also reflects the interaction between the Epicureans and their cities). In this vein Clay³⁴ notes that Epicurus' preoccupation with dating his works is a symptom of his concern for his survival as a philosopher (cf. also DL 10.120).

3