Epicurus' Attitude to Democritus Author(s): Pamela M. Huby Reviewed work(s): Source: Phronesis, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1978), pp.

80-86 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182030 . Accessed: 15/02/2013 10:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phronesis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:16:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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, 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

This content downloaded on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:16:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Democritum ipsum, quem secutus est, fuerit ingratus. Comparedwith 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 Cicerohere seems to be claimingnot merelythat

Epicurusattributedthe view that there was sensation in the body after death to Democritus,but also that Democritusdid not hold it, and would have been foolishif he had done so, and that Epicuruswas behavingbadly in making such a charge against him. But there is some evidence6that Democritusdid hold views which might be interpretedin this way, and called attentionto the gradualloss of warmthin 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, Democritus'scientificcaution",but, in view of Epicurus"misrepresented it is equally possible that Cicero Cicero'susual attitudeto the Epicureans, is here misrepresenting carefulphlosophicalarguments. Epicurus' c) Perhapsthe most importantpassagesare De Finibus I, 6, 21 and I, 8, 28, for here Cicerouses the dialogue formto give us both unsympathetic and sympatheticviews of the same matter.In the firstpassage,in his own he lists the debts of Epicurusto person,as an opponentof the Epicureans, Democritusin physics and the differencesbetween 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

To this Torquatus, the defender of Epicurus, replies: De vituperatum.

physicis alias ... probabo, et Democriti errata ab Epicuro reprehensa et correcta permulta.

It perhapsneeds sayingthat vituperatum is a much milderwordthanthe English 'vituperate',and merely means 'find fault with'.7Cicero in this passage is objecting even to this, but he does then allow Torquatusto describethe same activitesby 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 reprovedby Torquatusfor his criticism of Epicurusand defends himself for speakinghis 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 Epicurusdid infeed find fault with some aspects of Democritus'

81

This content downloaded on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:16:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

philosophy, he did so only in a way that could be described by a sympathetccriticas a legitimatemethodof correcting errors. It may or may not be a coincidencethat our next witness,Plutarch, also considers the proper tone of philosophicalargumentin a pair of works dealingwith Epicureanism, which are also relevantto our main topic. The AdversusColotemis a reply to a work by Colotes of Lampsacus, a pupil of Epicurus, who attackedmany philosophers of his own and earlier times becauseon theirview of the natureof externalobjectslife would be impossible.Among these was Democritus:
'yap&rro AnLOXPLTOV, & &XU) a X0ULOR.LVOV XaXXX MaL 'ApXe'TrL xip?IATOVT4a Trrcxp' vTOU. XL'TOL ITOXUvv LA'XXpLTELOV 6 )povov xvTos iavT'Ov vitViyOpEVE

E'rTLxoupos, T? XEyovGL xov AEOVTEVS, WS ?rr'axpov'E'TlXOVipov &XXoL eLsTCaV TE yp&4LXWV, TOV ALqP'XpTLTOV Vr 'rp6os Avx64opova pcaNTi)rv, 04L TLRLa(XUf
'EiTtxoVlpov 8lc
1pTaypa'rLrTv
TO

spo'rpov

64Jaw6

TS

O'p S6p&i~yvEU)s,

XOL

TO uVOXOV

riv

TO 'rEEp?ITEaELV A?LOXpL'TELOV1rpOOGCy0pEVW6EtL8LOX cVxTOv Tp6OTE-

pov TOXLS 'rEp' 4oar,s &)pX(CLS

(1108 E).8

who supposes- perThis passagehas been discussedby R. Westman9 haps unjustifiably - that the letter from Leonteus to Lycophronwas writtenwhile Epicuruswas still in Lampsacus,and who emphasisesthe choice of words about Democritus,particularly and ITEpL iEtELv, &%+aoOxL which he thinks recognise his pioneering success but also indicate its limits.10 The passagequoted also suggeststhat theremay have been a time late in life when Epicurusceased to call himselfa followerof Democritus. If so, it seems more probable that he did so because he found his philosophicalviews divergingmore and morefromthose of his predecessor than because he suddenly,when a matureman, became irrationally jealous of him. The other passageof Plutarchis in the Nonposse suavitervivisecundum Epicurum, an appendix to the AdversusColotemwhich gives a discussion supposedto have taken place followingthe readingof that work.It opens (1086E)with a remarkby Zeuxippus:
'E.oL ,IUv 8oxE! rToXiv 'rrs
,UxXCXWTEPV
-

6 XOYOS piPioOCITa(PP'fiOL(YS 1rPOGnXoOVGiS 8' i,ULV kyxxXovVTcs OL iTePLI1potxXEL&8V WS TOD &mIcaUL OVTOV OpaGVTEpOV

) aLTL(V 'EmIXoVpOv XcXL TOD M'rTP0o&,poV jJ.&V'qb XcOAX~cxp.EVOLS.

Theon replies: ELTxovx

'iJL6TOtTOS

EXEyE OTLTOIS Exeivwv 6

KwXbTTIS ITOpotpaxoXX6pvos

&VP(C)V 4rLvtcXL

That is, Zeuxippus regarded Plutarch's attack on Colotes as less outspoken than was required, the Epicurean Heraclides thought it went too far, and Theon argued that there were Epicureans whose violence of language

82

This content downloaded on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:16:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

exceeded even that of Colotes. Theon illustratesthis with a list of eight offensive terms used by Epicureansof seven philosophers,rangingfrom Parmenides and Pythagoras to Hipparchia,the notoriouswife of the Cynic Crates.Democritusis not on the list, and no hint of its origin is given. Epicurusand Metrodorus(the brother of Timocrateswho remained faithful to Epicurus)are then attacked for their abuse of poets, and the dialogue proceedswith a mixtureof argumentand invective presumably regardedby Plutarchas appropriate.In the course of a set of arguments that Epicurusdid not allow for a varietyof 'mental'pleasures,it is said that he did at least recognisethe pleasuresof fame.
8 OV TL OVTG oVx rX XEv avXTOs
Wonr
ii Otap-yv ITpLuxvWS X&iL u0,(v

?pos 8

tav

C6vov O VOV &'rX

TO'VS XOt&rouTsTxys

LI18& AL9[LOXpLTW TCr TOX 86ypraTx

o&TroL AA[1It(GLV UV4aLpOvRL'VwCVyOpxXdV 'TEp'L avXX43av xvL xepoxwv, ao46v 6e 4XVXl &8?Va T(V [La&9Tn4v n'IXT1v aV'TOV XviL ( 1100A). yEyOVEVOLL

Set againstthe general tone of the work this claim too is moderate.He 'quarrelled with Democritusaboutsyllablesand x?poaov'. These lastwords have been takento meanjust 'trivialities'-xrpx(x is the wordtranslated in the Gospels as 'tittle' - but they may have a more precise sense. KepaLO means somethingthat projectslike a horn, includinga part of a (written) letter. It could refer to some changes in philosophicalterminology,or we
may have here a clue to the Democritus
-

Lerocritus matter. AqpoxpLTos

differs from AixpL'XplToSby a syllable,and the firstlettersof the two words differ by a xepoio. At this point we reachmere speculation,but the words could have been taken as illustratingsome point about the relationshipof atoms in a compound,or they could have been used in some expositionof Epicurus'complicated theory of language, of which we have tantalising
fragments in the papyri of HlEpi OvImws Book XXVIII."1

Let us now returnto the questionof the correcttone in which to conduct

philosophical discussion. The appropriate tone is that of nappniaLx (Plu-

tarch 1086E), and this is also the subject of a work of Philodemusthe Epicureanwhich has survivedin fragmentsat Herculaneum.12 It appears to be mainly concernedwith freedom of speech in education,to be used both by the teacherto guide the pupil into correctways of thought,and by the pupil to makehis problemsclearto the teacher.Frag.20 is of particular interest:
8Eij Ip? [V] >El-

FLJv ?vnqV uDv|7v@[1v

,v oVs

&EITWE(OV,

WS ?V TE TOtS

rlpOs

- TX AqLoXpLTOV L'OTTa

'ErL'XOVpOS 8LaXTEXovS 0

This impliesthateven while criticisingDemocritusfor philosophicalerrors Epicurusmade allowancesfor him and used a moderatetone.13 The passagesexamined suggest that Philodemus,Plutarchand Cicero 83

This content downloaded on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:16:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

were all interestedin the tone in which philosophicaldiscussionshouldbe conducted,and thatall wereagreedthatfrankspeakingwithoutinsultswas felt thatjustificationwascalled for whatwas required.Ciceroand Plutarch if they went beyond this, but that one could be offensive in responseto offensivenesson the partof one's opponents.But for them it was merelya matterof taste, whereasPhilodemusis engaged in a seriousdiscussionof educationalmethod,and it seems likely that offensivespeech would have This mightstill school.14 been viewed with disfavourwithinthe Epicurean permitabusivenesstowardsoutsiders,but it would make it difficultto deal and provideevidence harshlywith Democritus.We may indeedgo further, that Epicurushimself, and a long line of his successors,dealt firmlybut gently with their great predecessor.For Epicurushimself, as well as the passage passage from Philodemusalreadyquoted, there is a fragmentary from PeriPhyseos,([34, 30] 7-15 Arrighetti).
Oi[ WOLITLOX[oJyv' 8LeV?yxaVcS

S &XX xa Xa
.

. . .

Xa

O[V] pL[VOV T[IV

'IpO[TJE[pJW][VJ

ITOX'

.v

iVa'Tepov ToXXa1TX[]aJaL, i\XxOov E'OrTOiS,

>?LEy XtaITEp kV 'ITAOXXOl ToIaiTov IaVTfa . .

XvLi Ta(Vt XOVO4fLUaVVTES v'Tr6(L) Tr1V &Va(I1XTJV

mustsurelybe Democritus, The man who went wrongabout determinism point. and he is praisedhighly as well as being criticisedon this particular Lucretiusalso speaks of Democritusin the highest possible terms.He twice uses the line Democritiquod sanctaviri sententiaponit Here the adjectivesancta goes grammaticallywith sententia, but this is probablysolely for metricalreasons.At III 370 ff. the opinionquotedis in fact rejected,thoughthatgiven at V 621 ff. is acceptedas possible.We may concludethat primarilyit is Democrituswho is sanctus. At III 1039 Democrituscomes in a list of great men who, for all their greatnesshave died. Ancus Martius,Scipio and Homerprecedehim, and Epicurushimself follows. There are, finally, two passages of Diogenes of Oenoanda, in which criticismand praiseof Democritusare mixed in exactly the same proportions as in earlierwriters.After a catalogueof the views of earlierphilosophersfromThalesonwardshe says: p V &T6[ovs OVUEls xacXXs y- nOIOV, bnEi rVrrr s 1A9 xplvosS 6 OAO8iqpLvn
8&
TEpL

avWrCzv &&AXi TLVr, kV

TarLs[LTrpaLS

86atls

'TLOXE4OGETaL. pOS

OVX aXXO[vrlXu ip&[aLV ?vJXeaop?V, VVVEi8'i [TotS] Cip&VOIS . i'v 8' &X[i'OELIJv xpT4LEVOL, aGVOVL O'XovsTrS 1TaXE OvwTOVS

(5 II 9-ll 6 Chilton)

84

This content downloaded on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:16:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Eav04Al1

8' &V(tvttILasEavov

xot

&XX xaOr' jovOV Aqj?OXpLTOS TrS &tT%LOVS

OCL(V EL?r()V'VITp(XELV 'EVTOtS OVOL, T(a Si

(6 II 2-8 XOLSIT( [V]OIjLF'rL &arvraTa.

Chilton) Against the evidence of Diogenes, Lucretius,Philodemusand Epicurus himself we can set only some vague claims of Plutarch,some temperate allegations of Cicero, and the single word 'Lerocritus'.If Epicurushad been the wild ingrate he is sometimes made out to be, we would have expected more evidencethan this.
University of Liverpool
1 Views have been of three types: some (e.g. Bailey have seen the matter as merely psychological,some (Karl Marxand Rist) have seen more profound ideological issues at work, while a few (Zeller, Reid, Arrighetti)have doubted the received account. 2 David Sedley, 'Epicurusand his ProfessionalRivals,'in tiudes sur l'Epicurisme Antique, ed. J. Bollack, Lille 1977, 121-159 has examined the evidence that Epicuruswas also unreasonablyabusive towardshis contemporaries,and found its foundations flimsy. 3 David Sedley, op. cit. 127-132,argues that Timocratesmay be the ultimate source of all the misrepresentation of Epicuruswe find in later writers. 4 See above p. 83. 5 David Sedley p. 128,points out that in the same passage Epicurus' attackon Timocrates is mentioned. LaterEpicureans,like Albucius and Zeno of Sidon, are also listed, and he suggests Philo of Larisaas Cicero'simmediate source. 6 Collected togetherby Guthrie, Historyof GreekPhilosophyI, p. 435. 7 For other examples in Cicero see Rep. III, 35, 48 and De Finibus11,28, 92. Cicero even uses the adjective vituperabilis, but a correspondingEnglish adjectiveis inconceivable. 8 The words uep!-Orcys seem out of place here, and it has been suggested that they should be deleted or moved elsewhere. But any change would not affect the sense. ' Plutarchgegen Kolotes(Acta PhilosophicaFennica Fasc. VII 1955)220-222. 101 shall consider later a passage from Diogenes of Oenoanda and one from Epicurus himself which are very similar. " Edited by David Sedley, CronacheErcolanesi3 (1973) 5-83. 12 Ed. Olivieri(Teubner 1914).The work has been studied recentlyby MarcelloGigante, RicercheFilodemee(Napoli 1969) pp. 41-61, also published in Actes du VIII Congres Intern.de l'AssociationBude (1969). 13 This work is not mentioned in Diogenes' list of Epicurus'works. It may have been part of the Against the Physicists. 14 There is a problem about Nausiphanes, whom Epicurusdid abuse (Diog. LaertiusX 7-8) and who has generally been regardedas a Democritean. If he was one, Epicurus' hostility to him could have been on either personalor ideological grounds, but it seems equally likely that he was not a Democritean at all. The only passageswhich clearly imply that he was one are Cicero De Nat. Deor. 1 26, 73, which itself suggests that Cicero had very little evidence on this point, and Diogenes Laertius1 15,an unsatisfactory passagewhere something is obviouslywrongwith the text. Against these, there is clear evidence from, among others, this same Diogenes Laertius, that he was a pupil of Pyrrhothe Sceptic. Indeed at IX 69 Diogenes actuallyincludes him

85

This content downloaded on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:16:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

among the Sceptics, though at IX 64 he implies that his doctrineswere different from those of Pyrrho.Sextus Empiricus(Adv. Math. 12) also describeshim as a pupilof Pyrrho, adding that he laid great emphasis on rhetoricand that Epicurusdeliberatelyattacked those subjectsof study for which Nausiphanes was particularlyadmired,which suggests that he covered a wide range of subjects. The scanty evidence about his work called the Tripodtakes us no further,but we may tentativelyuse Epicurusfrag. 104(Arrighetti),a fragmentof Philodemuswhich has been interpretedas quoting some referencesmade by Epicurusto Nausiphanes.If so, it seems that Nausiphaneslectured to a noisy crowd on Anaxagorasand Empedocles,and also on Democritus(and perhaps Leucippus,whose name has been restored).I would suggest, then, that though Nausiphanes lecturedon the atomists,as well as other philosophers,he did not accept theirviews, and that it was for this reason that Epicuruswas so rudeabout him and claimed to be self-taught. Epicurus had perceived the truth to which Nausiphanes was blind. p. 635). But the main point is clear. 1S The text is disputed (See Arrighetti2

86

This content downloaded on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:16:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions