Search Results: Prev | 1 of 136 | Next

Epicurean School
(1,973 words)

Article Table of Contents

• A. School of Epicurus
• B. Successors to Epicurus
• C. The School in Rome
• D. Between orthodoxy and heterodoxy
• E. Philosophical thought
• F. Internal organization
[German version]
A. School of Epicurus
The school, founded in Athens in 307/6 or 305/4, survived
as an institution until the 1st cent. BC. After a period of
obscurity we again come across references, from the 2nd
cent. AD, to some Epicurean philosophers. It was
between the 4th and 1st cents. BC that the Epicurean
School received its strength and vitality, extending both its
range of thought and its structure. That happened under a
series of school heads from Epicurus to Patron who
assured its fate and ensured its continuity even in times of
crisis and disruption. After his first five years as a teacher
in Mytilene and Lampsacus, Epicurus (342/1-271/0)
moved to Athens. There he founded the school that took
its name ‘garden’ (Κῆπος, Kêpos) from its setting.
Epicurus remained in Athens for the rest of his life,
surrounded by numerous students who shared the
commitment to a common philosophical goal (συζήτησις,
syzḗtēsis). The first circle of friends and pupils included
Metrodorus of Lampsacus, Pythocles, Polyaenus, Colotes
and Idomeneus, who had met Epicurus in Lampsacus and
followed him to Athens.
Dorandi, Tiziano (Paris)
[German version]
B. Successors to Epicurus
Epicurus' first successor was Hermarchus (died c. 250), a
pupil from Mytilene. With his death the first phase of
Epicureanism, that is of pupils who had listened to the
master in person, came to an end. Following Hermarchus
as the school head were Polystratus (died before 220/19),
Dionysius of Lamptrae (died 201/0) and Basilides of Tyrus
(died c. 175). In the long gap between the last of these and
Apollodorus Kepotyrannos we have to assume that there
was at least one other head of the school (Thespis?). In the
same period Philonides of Laodicea on the Pontus and
Protarchus of Bargylia were also active; the influence of
these significant Epicureans shows that Epicureanism was
spreading even to areas far removed from Athens, to Asia
Minor in particular. Even on Rhodes there existed a
flourishing Epicurean circle, which appears, however, to
have distanced itself from official doctrine.
The parent school in Athens experienced a heyday under
Apollodorus [10] Kepotyrannos, who was the head from
c. 150 until c. 110 BC and was well-known for his
extensive writing. Another famous Epicurean was
Demetrius [21] Lakon (c. 150-75), who never became
head and conducted his teaching mainly from Miletus.
After the death of Apollodorus, management of the
‘Garden’ passed to Zeno of Sidon (c. 150-75). Thereafter
the Athenian school survived under Phaedrus (c. 138-70)
and Patron (still head in 51) until at least the middle of the
1st cent. BC. A pupil of Zeno's, Philodemus of Gadara (c.
110-40), had left Athens at the end of the 80s, however,
and settled in Italy where he opened a new school at
Herculaneum. It was supposed to be the ideal extension of
the ‘Garden’ in Athens. The latter underwent a slow but
steady decline until it was on the verge of ruin at the end
of the 50s (Cic. Fam. 13,1,3 and Att. 5,11,6 ) whereas the
opposite was the case in Italy.
Dorandi, Tiziano (Paris)
[German version]
C. The School in Rome
An initial effort by Alcius and Philiscus to set up a school
on the occasion of the philosophers' embassy to Rome
(155 BC) was unsuccessful, as were also the clumsy
propaganda activities of C. Amafinius, C. Catius and
Rabirius about 100 years later. A new historical phase of
Epicureanism then began in the 1st cent. BC, resulting in a
large number of proselytes. Credit for this ‘Roman’
renaissance was attributed to the influence of the Greek-
speaking Epicurean circle in Campania and to the didactic
poem of Lucretius, De rerum natura. The lively battle
waged by Cicero against Epicureanism in those same
years was symptomatic of the growing dissemination of
the ‘garden's’ teachings in the Roman world. Epicurean
philosophy spread to the West and East of the Roman
Empire and left unmistakable traces behind. An example is
the letter from Trajan's widow, Pompeia Plotina, to
Hadrian in AD 121 (IG 21099): in her view the head of the
Epicurean school in Athens ought to be able to nominate
a successor who was not a Roman citizen and to compose
his last will in Greek; the request was granted by the
emperor. The letter attests to the existence of an obviously
institutionalized Athenian school in the 2nd cent. AD and
to the continued teaching of Epicurean philosophy (cf.
also Hadrian's subsequent letters to the Epicureans in
Athens: SEG 3,226; IG 21097). This school, however, was
probably not a continuation of the institution founded by
Epicurus, which had gone into decline in the middle of the
1st cent. BC. The treatise of Diogenianus (2nd cent.
AD ?) and the philosophical inscriptions of Diogenes [18]
of Oenoanda are sound evidence of the spread of
Epicureanism in the Imperial period. The latter attests to
the presence of Epicurean teaching in areas far removed
from cultural centres, as for example in the north of Lycia.
Recent efforts to assign Diogenes of Oenoanda to the 1st
cent. BC/1st cent. AD instead of the 2nd/3rd cents. AD
should be treated with caution but they do raise doubts as
to whether the ‘Garden's’ philosophy lasted beyond the
first centuries of the Empire.
Dorandi, Tiziano (Paris)
[German version]
D. Between orthodoxy and heterodoxy
Early in the history of the school there soon were schisms:
even in Epicurus' lifetime Timocrates, brother of
Metrodorus, left the ‘Garden’ and undertook a defamatory
campaign against Epicurus, causing a great deal of
damage. According to Philodemus, there was a whole
series of Epicurean dissidents (sophistaí) active in the
centres on Cos and Rhodes between the 2nd and 1st cents
BC: there it was taught that not even sophist rhetoric could
be regarded as an art (téchnē); Nicasicrates, possibly the
head of the school on Rhodes, maintained that a wise man
was not subject to the passions of flattery and anger.
Timasagoras expressed similar views on anger but he was
also interested in vision (ὄρασις; órasis). Antiphanes
modified some inconsequential aspects touching on the
life of gods (θεῶν διαγωγή; theôn diagōgḗ), while
Bromius seemed to prefer political to sophist rhetoric.
Although these Epicureans had probably strayed from
Epicurean teaching in secondary aspects, they did not
affect any of its key points.
Dorandi, Tiziano (Paris)
[German version]
E. Philosophical thought
The key points of philosophical thought and the basic
principles described in detail by Epicurus were not set out
in a canon to which adherence was expected. Epicurean
teaching underwent instead an independent development,
at any rate in particular secondary issues. That began in
the generations succeeding Epicurus and his immediate
pupils. It is only in the early stages of Epicureanism (from
Epicurus to Hermarchus) that one can speak of doctrinal
unity. The introduction of new features into the basic
structures of the master's teaching was admittedly
regarded by the Epicureans as heresy but at the same time
they felt compelled by changed social and cultural
conditions to reinterpret the school's dogmas. Changing
the criteria seemed to them a permissible means of
interpreting faithfully the word of Epicurus. In the light of
those considerations it was also possible to resolve the old
conflict between the ‘genuine representatives’ (gnḗsioi)
and the ‘Sophists’ (sophistaí) within the Epicureans. On a
theoretical level both parties were convinced that they
were reading Epicurus' work in terms of the master's own
principles but in practice they interpreted it at varying
depths of understanding and, in both cases, to suit their
own purposes at the time. Dissidence between the two
groups of gnḗsioi and sophistaí played an important role.
Fundamental to an understanding of this dissidence and its
historical relevance is the gap between the death of
Hermarchus, who was amongst Epicurus' immediate
pupils, and the following generations (from Polystratus
onwards). The latter engaged in interpreting those
principles of his teaching that had become canonical.
Common to both trends was the belief in the authenticity
of their own interpretation of the school's teachings.
The concept of orthodoxy is found to the same degree
amongst both the gnḗsioi and the sophistaí; but there was
a fundamental difference: the former emphasized the
teaching that they claimed had evolved within the school
itself, whereas this codified transmission was exactly what
the dissidents criticized for not reflecting the original
meaning of Epicurus' teaching and that of his immediate
pupils. On the basis of that interpretation it was easy to
exonerate key members (Apollodorus Kepotyrannos,
Demetrius Lakon, Zeno of Sidon and lastly Philodemus)
from accusations of dissidence. The phenomenon of
dissidence continued into the 1st cent. BC when
Philodemus fought strongly against it. The reasons for its
appearance are to be found in the difficult situation that
arose when the pioneers (καθηγεµόνες; kathēgemónes)
who had established the basic theories of the philosophical
system ─ Epicurus, Metrodorus, Hermarchus and
Polyaenus ─ had died. For free debate had then been
replaced by a book culture that required interpretations,
which in time altered to suit the needs of individual
interpreters. The original school in Athens had always
managed to maintain a strong line against dissidents. It
thus prevented the survival of deviant teachings and their
influence on the official direction of the ‘Garden’.
Dorandi, Tiziano (Paris)
[German version]
F. Internal organization
More than that of any other philosophical school, the
internal organization of the ‘Garden’ was from the
beginning based on principles of emulation, memory and
imitation. Epicurus had i.a. taught that the goal and
purpose of philosophy was to imitate godliness so as to be
able to live happily and undisturbed amidst the world's
evil. For members of the school that meant a constant
striving to imitate the pioneers who had achieved a level
of the greatest perfection in their own imitation of divine
bliss. From the first generation onwards, the school had
been organized on the ideal model of communal
partnership, in which individuals seemed to be parts of the
one body. In the Epicurean community each member
retained his own identity and personal individuality but
was also responsible for co-operating with the others in
order to achieve the common goal, bliss. In the ‘Garden’
there never developed an awkward hierarchical structure,
with a class distinction between philosophers, philologists,
teachers (καθηγηταί; kathēgētaí) and friends (συνήθεις;
sunḗtheis); the ideal of free speech (παρρησία, parrhēsía)
between teachers and pupils was more important.
Communal life was characterized by the pedagogical goals
of friendship (φιλία; philía), gratitude (χάρις; cháris) and
goodwill (εὔνοια; eúnoia). It is also revealing that the
school was open to female students; the sources give the
names Batis, Boidion, Demetria, Hedeia, Leontion,
Mammarion, Nikidion and Themista. Some of these
women took an active part in philosophical discussion.
Members of the school lived as a community on the
grounds of the garden. The practice of celebrating
commemorative days with feasts and banquets played an
important part in communal life. Such occasions
commemorated Epicurus, his dead brothers and friends
(Metrodorus and Polyaenus). Five rituals are attested to
have been held in the ‘Garden’: the annual cult of
mourning that Epicurus instituted in honour of his parents
and dead brothers; the two cults for Epicurus himself (one
annually on the 20th of the month of Gamelion, his
birthday, and another on the 20th of each month,
honouring Metrodorus also); one day was reserved to
commemorate the birthday of Epicurus' brothers in the
month of Poseideon; and finally a cult for Polyaenus, in
the month of Metageitnion. For the upkeep of the school
Epicurus made use of the syntáxeis system: donations
made to the ‘Garden’ by influential people (sometimes
solicited by Epicurus).
Dorandi, Tiziano (Paris)
Bibliography
A. Angeli, Filodemo. Agli amici di scuola (PHerc. 1005),
1988, 82-102
C. J. Castner, Prosopography of Roman Epicureans, 21991
T. Dorandi, Ricerche sulla cronologia dei filosofi
ellenistici, 1991, 45-54, 62-64
J. Ferguson, Epicureanism under Roman Empire, ANRW
II 36.4, 2257-2327
S. Follet, in: REG 107, 1994, 158-171.
Cite this page
Dorandi, Tiziano (Paris), “Epicurean School”, in: Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited
by: Hubert Cancik and , Helmuth Schneider, English Edition by: Christine F. Salazar, Classical
Tradition volumes edited by: Manfred Landfester, English Edition by: Francis G. Gentry.
Consulted online on 18 January 2020 <http://dx.doi.org.pbidi.unam.mx:
8080/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e332610>
First published online: 2006
First print edition: 9789004122598, 20110510