The slogans ‘live unnoticed' and ‘do not participate in politics', the inability to perform feats or contributions for the benefit of the community, and the mockery of great politicians of the past all clearly demonstrate the Epicurean disinterest in political communities to their philosophical adversaries.

To be sure, this is a very diffuse image of Epicureanism, in which the ancient anti-Epicurean tradition converges with the philosophical historiography of the nineteenth century.

Traditionally, the Epicureans are not only regarded as having a theoretical disinterest in political communities, but above all as having a practical disinterest in such matters which is translated into a refusal to participate in politics and a minimal interaction with society. But how reliable is this image of the Epicureans forged by their critics? If they omitted essential aspects of the Epicureans' political philosophy, it is reasonable to think that they were not interested in scrupulously reporting their lifestyle either. Exaggeration and the use of a melodramatic tone were typical rhetorical devices in the philosophical diatribes of antiquity, of which contemporary readers seem to have been fully aware. Furthermore, the opponents of the Epicureans refer only sporadically to public performances of the Epicureans to try to show that they represent a hypocritical and unimportant mode of behaviour that is inconsistent with their doctrine. This is another typical strategy of Hellenistic critical writing, which is not aimed at providing reliable information about a philosophical doctrine and the lifestyle of those who follow it but rather at repudiating it.

Although the figures of Epicurus and the founders of the Garden have maintained a strong presence throughout the history of Epicureanism, Epicurean philosophy, as Grimal rightly emphasized, was not a religion.² Grimafs observation is particularly interesting, since it seems to contrast in some ways with the advice of Epicurus himself, who, according to Hermippus' report, ‘got into a bathtub filled with warm water, asked for unmixed wine, and drained the cup' (DL 10.16; transl. P. Mensch). After this, Epicurus urged his friends to remember his doctrines, and then he died. One might interpret these words of Epicurus as the recommendation of a teacher who is especially concerned with the fact that his doctrine remains intact in the sense of preserving, in a ‘rigid' way, the fundamental principles of his philosophy. But it should not be forgotten that Epicurean philosophy understood as a ‘way of life' places a strong emphasis upon the prudential aspect of how each person must deal with particular situations in life. Understood from this perspective, the injunction to ‘not forget the doctrines of the master' does not necessarily mean that one cannot or should not adapt one's decisions in a prudential way to the concrete situation in which one finds oneself. Indeed, Epicureanism places prudence φρoνησις at the centre of its doctrine (LM 132); according to Epicurus, prudence is more valuable even than philosophy. In ancient philosophy, prudence is associated with an insightful attention to situations and the concrete circumstances of decisions and actions. The high Epicurean valuation of prudence seems to connote versatility, i.e. having the capacity to adapt if the concrete situation thus requires. In Epicurus' letters, for example, one can see how his message is tailored to specific addressees, people who are being initiated into doctrine or who are busy (ασχολοι; LP 84), such as the politicians Idomeneus and Mithras.³

Thus, a wise Epicurean person, or someone like a student or a busy person who is progressing towards wisdom, must be able to make a balanced judgement that allows for an appropriate outcome according to the vicissitudes the person is going through.

Our purpose in this chapter is twofold. On the one hand, we are concerned with examining various tenets by which the adversaries of the Epicureans ascribe to them a kind of apoliticism or anti-politics, and a disinterest in political communities. On the other hand, the chapter attempts to highlight various aspects of the interaction between Epicurus (and the Epicureans), and the societies in which they developed their philosophy. From both tasks, a richer, more complex, and more interesting picture of the Epicureans' political doctrine and lifestyle emerges than the one that their critics to a large extent managed to impose on later interpretations of Epicurean philosophy. The discussion proceeds as follows. In section 1 we show how Cicero, Epictetus and Plutarch base the apoliticism of the Epicureans on their refusal of the natural sociability of human beings. They derive this refusal from the egoistic hedonism they attribute to the famous Epicurean slogans ‘live unnoticed' and ‘do not participate in politics', as well as the maxims of conduct for the Epicurean wise person and their criticisms of great politicians of the past. However, we hold, these critiques do not deal with the context or meaning of these slogans, maxims and criticisms in the work and thought of Epicurus, and their polemical strategy involves a certain historical levity insofar as it does not include a scrupulous examination of the lifestyle of Epicurus and the Epicureans.

In section 2 we highlight the interaction between Epicurus and Athens through the consideration of several testimonies dealing with his life and through the analysis of an exceptional document: Epicurus' testament. Such testimonies present Epicurus as a person who loved his city, respected its laws and institutions, participated in the worship of his city, and integrated his family relationships into the exercise of philosophy. To sum up, Epicurus acted loyally, nobly and justly in his city and recommended his friends to act in the same way.

In section 3 we provide a significant amount of evidence to show that, contrary to what Cicero, Plutarch and other ancient writers used to say about the Epicureans' disinterest in politics, there were numerous Epicureans, most of them belonging to higher class, involved in politics and in the life of their own poleis. They served as advisers of kings, distinguished diplomats, ambassadors, priests of the imperial and local cult, and even as prophets. We analyse heterogeneous documents related to different ancient cities. These include the Vita Philonidis ( PHerc. 1044), recovered among the papyri of Herculaneum; brief inscriptions, both public and private, from different cities, and two exceptional epigraphic testimonies: the inscriptions on stone blocks that formed part of the great wall on which Diogenes of Oenoanda had Epicurus' doctrine engraved, and the inscriptions reproducing several letters addressed by Plotina, Trajan's widow, and perhaps also by Hadrian, to the Athenian Epicureans in the third decade of the second century ad.

Finally, section 4 is dedicated to examining some illustrious Roman Epicureans who were involved in the most important political events in Rome in the first century âñ, and were also in one way or another related to Cicero. Those people have been the subject of numerous studies that make plausible their Epicureanism and the Epicurean imprint of various orientations and decisions in their lives. 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. In section 5 we furnish some brief concluding remarks.

1