Asmis Philodemus' Epicureanism

Philodemus' Epicureanism
by
E L I Z A B E T H ASMIS,
Chicago, 111.
Contents
I. Introduction
2369
II. Historical Writings

2375
1. 'Index Stoicorum'; 'Index Academicorum'
2375
2. 'On the Stoics'; 'On Epicurus'; 'Works on the Records of Epicurus and some
others'; 'Against the ...'
2376
III. Writings on Scientific Method: 'On Phenomena and Inferences'; and others . . . 2380
IV. Theological Writings: 'On Piety'; 'On the Gods'; 'On the Way of Life of the
Gods'
2381
V. Ethical Writings
2384
1. 'On Vices and Virtues': Book 7 ('On Flattery'); Book 9 ('On Household Management'); Book 10 ('On Arrogance')
2384
2. 'COMPARETTI Ethics'; 'On Death'
2391
3. 'On Frankness'; 'On Anger'
2393
VI. Writings on Rhetoric, Music, and Poetry: 'On Rhetoric'; 'On Music'; 'On Poems';
'On the Good King according to Homer'
2400
I.
Introduction
In his speech 'Against Piso', delivered in 55 B. C., Cicero describes the

friendship between Philodemus, the Epicurean philosopher, and L. Calpurnius
Piso Caesoninus, the father-in-law of Caesar and Cicero's bitter enemy at this
time. According to Cicero, when Piso was still a youth, he and Philodemus
became such close friends that they hardly ever parted (68). In this relationship,
Cicero alleges, the pupil, Piso, corrupted the teacher. Cicero concedes that he
personally knows Philodemus to be "humane" (humanus, 68) when he is not
with Piso. Although Cicero calls Philodemus a "flatterer" (assentator, 70), he
also respects him as a "talented and learned person" (ingeniosum hominem
atque eruditum, 68), "very accomplished not only in philosophy, but also in
the other studies, which virtually all the rest of the Epicureans are said to
neglect" (70).
Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library
Authenticated
Download Date | 10/29/16 12:13 AM
2370
ELIZABETH
ASMIS
In later years, Cicero changed his opinion of Piso and valued Philodemus
without reservation. In his book ' O n Ends', written in 45 B. C., Cicero
denounces Epicurean philosophy, but pays tribute to Philodemus, along with
the Epicurean Siro, as friends (familiares) w h o are "most excellent men and
most learned persons" (cum optimos viros turn homines doctissimos, 2.119).
This paper is an attempt to show, in a brief survey of Philodemus'
writings, what is distinctive about Philodemus' learning. T h r o u g h o u t antiquity,
the Epicureans had a reputation of being the most unlearned of philosophers.
Cicero shared this view. T h e Epicureans gained this reputation because they
believed that traditional learning was useless, since it made no contribution
to happiness, and that it could even be h a r m f u l . 1 This view did not, however,
put the Epicureans under an obligation to avoid all learning. From the time
of Epicurus, Epicureans studied such disciplines as mathematics, music, poetry,
and rhetoric, along with the writings of other philosophers, in order to refute
their opponents and warn others against the uncritical pursuit of learning. 2
Although they placed strict limits on learning, they believed that certain kinds
of learning are compatible with Epicurean teachings.
Philodemus belongs to this Epicurean tradition of learning. Although his
philosophical understanding was not as broad or deep as that of some other
Epicureans, notably his own teacher, Z e n o of Sidon, his intellectual curiosity
took him in new directions. In one of his epigrams (Palatine Anthology 11.44),
Philodemus calls himself "beloved by the Muses", |ioi)ao<piA,i|(;. He and his
R o m a n contemporary, Lucretius, were the first and only poets among the
Epicureans. Whereas Lucretius used poetry as a means of imparting Epicurean
teachings, Philodemus practiced it for its own sake, as a pleasant diversion
that was entirely appropriate to an Epicurean philosopher. As a devotee of
the Muses, Philodemus took a special interest in the liberal arts of music,
poetry, and rhetoric. In addition, his interests ranged over the entire history
of culture. Intent on preserving and strengthening the tradition of Epicurean
philosophy, he was a historian of Epicureanism, as well as an exponent of its
teachings. In order to provide a context for Epicureanism, moreover, he
Abbreviations:
ANRW
CErc
Aufstieg und Niedergang der Rmischen Welt / Rise and Decline of the
R o m a n World, W. HAASE, H . TEMPORINI, eds., Berlin - N e w York 1972 ff.
Cronache Ercolanesi
CRNERT
WILHELM CRNERT, K o l o t e s u n d M e n e d e m u s , M u n i c h
PHILIPPSON
ROBERT PHILIPPSON,
SVF
2482.
IOANNES VON ARNIM, ed., Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 4 vols., Leipzig
1903-1924.
HERMANN USENER, ed., Epicrea, Leipzig
Philodemos
(5),
in: R E
XIX 2
1906.
(1938), col.
2444-
1887.
U 163, 227, 229.

Some w o r k s dealing with traditional subjects of instruction are: (in the time of Epicurus)
Epicurus' T l e p i HOUOIKT' and T l e p i >T|TOpucfj\ Hermarchus' T l e p i T<BV NA0TM<rt<ov',
and Metrodorus' T l e p i TCOvmidTCOv'; (and in the generation before Philodemus) Demetrius
Lacon's T l e p i y(0|isipia', and Z e n o of Sidon's T l e p i f)tiTopiKT, Tlepi TtoiTipattov
XPT|<TEto\ T l e p i YpannaTiKj', and T l e p i yeconeTpia'.

Authenticated
PHILODEMUS'
EPICUREANISM
2371
became a historian of philosophy in general. H e excerpted and summarized

the writings of a very large number of writers philosophers, poets, historians, and many others, Epicurean and non-Epicurean , as well as composed
much that was original. His position as emigrant at R o m e gave special impetus
to these broad cultural concerns. Philodemus aimed not only to introduce the
Romans to Epicureanism, but also to s h o w them what was worth saving, and
what was not, in the rest of Greek thought.
Few biographical details are k n o w n about Philodemus. 3 He was born at
Gadara near the Sea of Galilee about 110 or 100 B. C. and studied philosophy
in Athens under Z e n o of Sidon, head of the Epicurean school. Philodemus
calls himself a "faithful lover" ([OK] 7tiax[oi;] paoTT}q) of Z e n o in Z e n o ' s
lifetime and an "untiring singer of his praises" (K07tiai0<; 0|IVT|"tr|<;) after he
died. 4 Cicero, w h o heard Z e n o in Athens, describes him as a "sharp old man"
(,acriculus ... senex) and the "most acute" ( a c u t i s s i m u s ) o f the Epicureans. 5
Z e n o was a productive and original thinker, w h o revitalized Epicureanism
by engaging in debate with other philosophers, particularly the Academic
Carneades. H e is probably the most important Epicurean philosopher after
Epicurus. A prolific writer, Z e n o covered the w h o l e of Epicureanism as well
as other areas such as Euclidean geometry and Stoic logic, both of which he
criticized. 6 Philodemus used him as his major source.
Probably in the 70's, Philodemus migrated to R o m e , where he became
friend and mentor to Piso. 7 According to Cicero, he wrote a very elegant
' ROBERT PHILIPPSON provides a detailed account of Philodemus' life and writings in: RE
X I X 2 ( 1 9 3 8 ) , c o l . 2 4 4 4 - 2 4 8 2 . MARCELLO GIGANTE h a s u p d a t e d PHILIPPSON'S s u r v e y
in: La Bibliothque de Philodme et l'picurisme R o m a i n , Collection d'tudes anciennes

56, Paris 1987 ( = IDEM, Filodemo in Italia, Bibliotechina del saggiatore 49, Firenze
1990). I Y Z H T H Z I 1 , Studi sull'Epicureismo greco e r o m a n o offerti a Marcello Gigante,
voi. 2 (Rassegne bibliografiche), Naples 1983, contains detailed bibliographies of Philod e m u s : FRANCESCA LONGO AURICCHIO, F i l o d e m o : l a ' R e t o r i c a ' a l a ' M u s i c a ' , p p . 5 5 3 5 6 4 ; COSTANTINA R O M E O , F i l o d e m o : l a ' P o e t i c a ' , p p . 5 6 5 - 5 8 3 ;
a n d ANNA ANGELI,
Filodemo: le altre opere, pp. 5 8 5 - 6 3 3 . N o w see also T. DORANDI, Filodemo: gli

orientamenti della ricerca attuale, above in this same volume (ANRW II 36,4), pp. 2328 2368, and IDEM, Filodemo storico del pensiero antico, below in this same volume, pp.
2407 - 2423.
4
P H e r c . 1 0 0 5 , c o l . 1 4 . 8 - 9 ANGELI.
Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 3.38.
D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s ( 1 0 . 2 5 ) c a l l s h i m 7toXuyp<i<po<;. ANNA ANGELI a n d MARIA COLAIZZO
have collected the fragments of Z e n o in 'I f r a m m e n t i di Z e n o n e Sidonio', CErc 9 (1979):

p p . 47 - 1 3 3 . See also the article on Z e n o by KURT VON FRITZ, in: R E X A 1 (1972), col.
122-138.
I agree with PHILIPPSON (col. 2444 - 2445) that since, according t o Cicero (In Pisonem
68), Philodemus became acquainted with Piso as adulescentem,
he probably made Piso's
acquaintance in the 70's. CONRAD CICHORIUS, Rmische Studien, Leipzig 1922, p. 295,
suggests, on the basis of Cicero's remark that Philodemus was unable to resist an
imperator of the R o m a n people (In Pisonem 70), t h a t Philodemus got to k n o w Piso
when the latter w a s imperator in M a c e d o n i a in 58 55 B . C . and that Philodemus did
n o t c o m e t o R o m e u n t i l 5 5 B. C . M A R C E L L O GIGANTE f a v o r s CICHORIUS' d a t i n g
(La
Bibliothque de Philodme, p. 74 = IDEM, Filodemo in Italia, p. 64), and so does T.

DORANDI (Filodemo: gli orientamenti della ricerca attuale, above pp. 2330 - 2332).

Authenticated
2372
ELIZABETH
ASMIS
p o e m w h o s e morality no one could fault. But, Cicero a d d s , at the urging of

P i s o he a l s o w r o t e p o e m s d e t a i l i n g all t h e s e n s u a l e x c e s s e s o f P i s o
Piso
70 71).
Some
thirty
epigrams
of
Philodemus
are
extant.
(Against
They
are
p r e d o m i n a n t l y a b o u t love, but they are hardly lascivious.8 O n e m e n t i o n s Piso

b y n a m e ; it is a n i n v i t a t i o n t o a c e l e b r a t i o n o f E p i c u r u s ' b i r t h d a y . 9 P h i l o d e m u s '
o n l y o t h e r k n o w n r e f e r e n c e t o P i s o o c c u r s in ' O n t h e G o o d
to H o m e r ' , which Philodemus dedicated to
King
according
Piso.10
P h i l o d e m u s ' w r i t i n g s r e v e a l l i t t l e e l s e a b o u t h i s l i f e . In o n e o f h i s
(Palatine Anthology
thirty-seven,
but
poems
1 1 . 4 1 ) , h e t e l l s t h a t h e is g e t t i n g o l d n o w , a t t h e a g e o f
that
h e still c a r e s
about
music
and
love
and
parties.
In
another p o e m (Palatine Anthology 6.349), he prays for a safe journey to the

Piraeus.11 M o s t of his other p o e m s celebrate his loves; s o m e d e s c r i b e
modest
f e a s t s . 1 2 A r e f e r e n c e t o A n t o n y in P h i l o d e m u s ' ' O n S i g n s ' p r o b a b l y
belongs
t o a r o u n d t h e y e a r 4 0 B . C . 1 3 It is r e a s o n a b l e t o s u p p o s e t h a t P h i l o d e m u s d i e d
n o t m u c h later. A p a p y r u s f r a g m e n t s h o w s t h a t P h i l o d e m u s w a s a f r i e n d
9
10
of
GIGANTE analyses C i c e r o ' s judgment a b o u t P h i l o d e m u s in 'II ritratto di F i l o d e m o nella

Pisoniana', in: Ricerche Filodemee, 2nd rev. ed., Bibl. della P a r o l a del P a s s a t o VI, N a p l e s
1983, pp. 3 5 - 5 4 .
Palatine Anthology 11.44.
C o l . 4 3 . 1 6 - 1 7 D O R A N D I . A g a i n s t t h e p r e v a i l i n g v i e w , W A L T E R A L L E N , J R . , a n d PHILLIP
H . DE LACY have a r g u e d ( T h e Patrons of Philodemus, in: C l a s s i c a l Philology 34 [1939]:

pp. 5 9 - 6 5 ) that Philodemus did not have a c l o s e relationship with Piso. C i c e r o ' s
testimony, however, points to a strong bond between the t w o men; see GIGANTE'S
discussion of Philodemus' epigram to Piso, in: L a Bibliothque d e Philodme, chapter 5
('Philodme et Pisn, d ' H e r c u l a n u m R o m e ' ) , p p . 1 0 9 1 2 2 ( = IDEM, F i l o d e m o in
Italia, chapter 5 ['Filodemo e Pisone: da E r c o l a n o a R o m a ' ] , p p . 103 116).
11 GIGANTE (La
Bibliothque d e Philodme, pp. 7 5 - 7 8 = IDEM, F i l o d e m o in Italia,
pp. 65 68) p r o p o s e s that Philodemus' prayer to v a r i o u s sea deities in this p o e m indicates
that he is a youth, not yet converted to Epicureanism a n d setting o u t for study at Athens
from his h o m e town of G a d a r a . But, a s Lucretius s h o w s in his invocation t o Venus,
prayers to the g o d s are entirely c o m p a t i b l e with E p i c u r e a n i s m .
12 GIGANTE (La
Bibliothque de Philodme, pp. 7 8 - 8 7 = IDEM, F i l o d e m o in Italia,
pp. 69 79) m a k e s the suggestion that the festivities described by P h i l o d e m u s in Palatine
Anthology 9.412 and 11.35 depict life in Piso's villa at H e r c u l a n e u m .
" Col. 2.15 18: " t h e pygmies that Antony just n o w b r o u g h t f r o m S y r i a " . Against the
traditional view that the pygmies were brought t o R o m e in 54 B. C . , H . M . LAST a r g u e d
convincingly that the pygmies were brought a b o u t 4 0 B. C . , in ' T h e D a t e of P h i l o d e m o s
D e Signis', Classical Quarterly 16 (1922): pp. 1 7 7 - 1 8 0 . O n the d a t i n g , see a l s o PHILLIP
DE LACY and ESTELLE DE LACY, eds., Philodemus, O n M e t h o d s of Inference, N a p l e s
1978, pp. 163 - 164. T h e n a m e ' A n t o n y ' has been read in t w o other texts. DIELS supplied
it in ' O n the G o d s ' , b o o k 1, col. 25-36 - 37 (see his c o m m e n t a r y , p. 99, in: P h i l o d e m o s ,
ber die Gtter, Erstes Buch, Abhandlungen der k. Preuss. A k a d e m i e der W i s s e n s c h a f t e n ,
philosoph.-hist. K l a s s e , n. 7, 1915). But KNUT KLEVE has s h o w n that this reading is
d o u b t f u l (in: TIZIANO DORANDI, d., II buon re s e c o n d o O m e r o , N a p l e s 1982, p. 28,
n. 23); see also GIGANTE, L a Bibliothque de P h i l o d m e , p. 69 ( = IDEM, F i l o d e m o in
Italia, p. 59). T h e other place is ' O n M u s i c ' , b o o k 3, fr. 22.5, p. 66 VAN KREVELEN, where
GOMPERZ suggested the n a m e of Antony (Zu P h i l o d e m ' s Biichern von der M u s i k , Wien
1985, p. 17). DORANDI s h o w s that this conjecture is w r o n g (ibid., p. 28, n. 23).

Authenticated
PHILODEMUS'
2373
EPICUREANISM
Siro at N a p l e s a n d spent t i m e a t H e r c u l a n e u m . 1 4 All the e x t a n t p r o s e writings

o f P h i l o d e m u s w e r e found in a H e r c u l a n e a n villa t h a t w a s d e s t r o y e d by the
e r u p t i o n o f Vesuvius in 7 9 A. D . T h e writings found in the villa are a l m o s t
all E p i c u r e a n , a n d the m a j o r i t y are by P h i l o d e m u s . 1 5 It is plausible t h a t the
villa belonged t o Piso a n d w a s a c e n t e r o f E p i c u r e a n activity in s o u t h e r n
Italy. 1 6 If Vergil is t h e a u t h o r o f ' C a t a l e p t o n ' 5 a n d 8, Vergil studied with Siro
and lived in S i r o ' s h o u s e ; 1 7 if so, he k n e w P h i l o d e m u s . In any c a s e , it is likely
t h a t P h i l o d e m u s k n e w both Vergil and H o r a c e . 1 8
P h i l o d e m u s ' p r o s e w r i t i n g s are preserved only in f r a g m e n t a r y c o n d i t i o n .
S o m e seventy p a p y r u s rolls h a v e been assigned t o him o n the basis o f partially
or wholly p r e s e r v e d subscripts, indicating his n a m e a n d the title o f the w o r k .
M a n y m o r e p a p y r u s rolls h a v e been c o n j e c t u r e d t o be w o r k s o f P h i l o d e m u s ,
with v a r y i n g d e g r e e s o f plausibility. T h e s t a t e o f p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e papyri
ranges f r o m a f e w s n a t c h e s o f t e x t t o c o n t i n u o u s c o l u m n s t h a t s h o w long
14
15
PHerc. 312, fr. 1, col. 4, in CRNERT, p. 126.

CHRISTIAN JENSEN sketches the history and contents of the library in 'Die Bibliothek
von Herculaneum', Bonner Jahrbcher 135 (1930): pp. 49 61; translated in 'Saggi di
papirologia
16
ercolanese',
by
CHRISTIAN J E N S E N ,
WOLFGANG
SCHMID, a n d
MARCELLO
GIGANTE, Naples 1979, pp. 9 - 2 6 . Full details of the contents are in the 'Catalogo dei
Papiri Ercolanesi', ed. by MARCELLO GIGANTE, Naples 1979. GIGANTE has a chapter on
the library, with a survey of Philodemus' works, in 'La Bibliothque de Philodme', pp.
3 1 - 7 1 ( = IDEM, Filodemo in Italia, pp. 1 9 - 6 2 ) . GIGANTE accepts the result of a study
by GUGLIELMO CAVALLO, Libri scritture scribi a Ercolano, CErc 13, suppl. 1, Naples
1983. CAVALLO attempts to deduce the chronological sequence of Philodemus' writings
by a study of the handwriting of the papyri. Although it is possible to differentiate
between hands and types of handwriting, it seems to me very doubtful whether any
conclusions can be drawn about the sequence of acquisitions in the library or about the
dates of composition.
This traditional view is endorsed by GIGANTE (La Bibliothque de Philodme, p. 29 =
IDEM, Filodemo in Italia, pp. 1 7 - 1 8 ) . Recently, MARIA RITA WOJCIK proposed the Appii
Claudii Pulchri as owners of the villa (La Villa dei Papiri ad Ercolano: Contributo alia
ricostruzione dell'ideologia della nobilitas tardorepubblicana, Rome 1986). But this
proposal rests on a highly speculative interpretation of the choice of statues in the villa,
as pointed out by ELEANOR W. LEACH in her review of WOJCIK'S book, in: American
J o u r n a l o f A r c h a e o l o g y 9 2 ( 1 9 8 8 ) : pp. 1 4 5 - 1 4 6 .
17
18
In Catalepton 5.9, the poet describes himself as magnt petentes docta dicta Sironis. In
Catalepton 8, the poet addresses Siro's villa as his present abode. Donatus (Vita Verg.
79) and Servius (on Eel. 6.13) state that Vergil studied with Siro.
Following ALFRED KRTE (Augusteer bei Philodem, Rheinisches Museum 45 [1890]: pp.
1 7 2 - 1 7 7 ) , CRNERT (p. 127) proposes the names of Horace and Vergil, along with
Quintilius and Varius, in PHerc. 1082 col. 11.1 - 7 and PHerc. 253 fr. 1 2 . 4 - 5 . Quintilius,
KRTE argued, is Quintilius Varus, an Epicurean friend of Vergil; L. Varius Rufus was
a poet admired by Vergil and Horace. Although the names of Quintilius and Varius are
clearly legible in the papyri, the names of Vergil and Horace are highly conjectural (see
MARCELLO GIGANTE, p p . 7 1 - 7 4 o f ' V i r g i l i o e la C a m p a n i a ' , N a p l e s 1 9 8 4 ) . As JENSEN
argues (Die Bibliothek von Herculaneum, pp. 5 6 - 5 9 ) , Horace's interest in Epicureanism

and other parallels between Horace's and Philodemus' work suggest strongly that they
knew each other.

Authenticated
2374
ELIZABETH
ASMIS
stretches of argument. In the following survey, I shall f o c u s on s o m e of the

better preserved texts.
It is difficult to classify Philodemus' writings according to strict categories.
A few of the preserved w o r k s may be classified as historical reports rather
than expositions of philosophical doctrine. But, in general, Philodemus places
his philosophical discussions in a historical perspective. In presenting Epicurean doctrine, he defends both the lives and teachings of his Epicurean
predecessors. At the s a m e time, he examines the lives and doctrines of those
who hold different views. His a p p r o a c h varies f r o m the reporting of opinions
and biographical facts to polemical refutation and the detailed construction
of arguments, often within the s a m e work.
Philodemus' main area of interest is ethics a n d , in close conjunction with
ethics, musical and literary studies. H e wrote a few w o r k s on 'canonic', the
study of scientific method, which Epicurus regarded as a prerequisite to the
study of physics. Unlike his teacher Z e n o , Philodemus seems to have had little
interest in physics. T o the extent that he deals with physical topics, such as
the nature of the g o d s and death, he stresses the ethical application. In ethics,
Philodemus covers the entire field. H e seems to have had a strong personal
interest in problems of religion and death, a n d , secondarily, in the problem
of h o w to earn one's living. His w o r k s on music, rhetoric, and poetry fall
within the broader field of ethics, but may be classified separately under the
heading of liberal arts.
II. Historical
Writings
1. 'Index Stoicorum'; 'Index A c a d e m i c o r u m '

According to Diogenes Laertius, Philodemus w r o t e a history of philosophy, 'Td>v cpiXooo(ptov CTUvxa^n;' ('Arrangement of Philosophers'), in at least ten
b o o k s . 1 9 It has been conjectured that the so-called 'Index S t o i c o r u m ' (PHerc.
1018) and 'Index A c a d e m i c o r u m ' (PHerc. 164 and 1021), a l o n g with some
other much less well preserved papyri, belong to this w o r k . 2 0 Except for the
" Diogenes Laertius (10.3) notes that in the tenth b o o k of this work Philodemus wrote
that Epicurus' three brothers did philosophy with him.
20 T h e only complete editions of the 'Indices' are: AUGUSTUS TRAVERSA, ed., Index Stoicorum Herculanensis, Genoa 1942; and SIEGFRIED MEKLER, ed., A c a d e m i c o r u m Philosophorum Index Herculanensis, Berlin 1902. T h e first part of 'Index A c a d e m i c o r u m ' (col.
1 to col. 18.16), dealing with Plato and the Old A c a d e m y , has been re-edited, with a
translation and detailed commentary, by KONRAD GAISER in: Philodems Academica,
Supplementum Platonicum 1, Stuttgart - Bad Cannstatt 1988. TRAVERSA, MEKLER, and
GAISER are all in favor of Philodemean authorship. In his careful discussion of the
authorship of 'Index Stoicorum' (pp. x v - x x ) , TRAVERSA points out that the traditional
attribution of this work to Philodemus rests on very slender evidence. H e adds the
following new arguments (p. xix): the reference to the Epicurean Apollodorus (col.

Authenticated
PHILODEMUS'
EPICUREANISM
2375
appearance of ou on the subscript of PHerc. 1018, the title and name of the
author have not been preserved on any of these papyri.
T h e two 'Indices' have the same format. They outline the chronological
sequence of philosophers in each school, with biographical details about the
most important philosophers, together with long lists of students. There is no
discussion of philosophical doctrines, nor any mention of works written by
the philosophers; a few summary opinions are inserted along the way to
identify certain philosophers. T h e 'Index Stoicorum' is a history of the Stoics
from Zeno to Panaetius and his followers. T h e 'Index Academicorum' deals
with the Academics from Plato to Aristus, the brother of Antiochus.
Although there has long been a consensus attributing the 'Indices' to
Philodemus, there is some doubt whether Philodemus is responsible for them.
T h e 'Indices' belong to the well established genre of iaSoxai, histories of the
successions of philosophers, and have nothing distinctively Epicurean about
them. Whereas Philodemus tends to be highly polemical in the works ascribed
to him in our sources, the author of the 'Indices' is uncritical of the opinions
of the people that he writes about. T h e fact that the chronological sequence
of both 'Indices' ends about Philodemus' time indicates no more than that
they were written and added to the Herculanean library about the same time
as Philodemus' known works.
On the other hand, Philodemus was very well acquainted with the history
of philosophy; and he often draws objectively and at length from nonEpicurean sources. It is possible that he composed the 'Indices' as reference
works for the benefit of his students. T h e self-references at the end of the 'Indices'
point to an author who was active in philosophical circles about Philodemus'
1.1012) and the remark that the Stoic Dionysius converted to Epicurean hedonism
(col. 3 2 . 1 3 ) suggest an Epicurean perspective; and nothing in the chronology conflicts
with Philodemean authorship. Perhaps TRAVERSA'S best piece o f evidence is his discovery
of the lettersCTUin the subscript (pp. 101 - 102 of his edition). CRNERT (pp. 127 - 1 3 3 )
proposes that, along with the 'Index Stoicorum' and the 'Index Academicorum', the
following Herculanean papyri belong to Philodemus' ' l u v r a ^ i q ' : PHerc. 1508 ('De
Pythagoricis'), PHerc. 327 ('De Eleatibus et Abderitis'), and PHerc. 558 and 495 ('De
Socrate'). PHILIPPSON (col. 2464) tentatively accepts CRNERT'S proposal. M o r e recently,
TIZIANO DORANDI has argued that the 'Indices', together with PHerc. 327, 1508, and
1780 (an account o f the Epicurean school, which CRNERT excluded from the ' l u v i a ^ i i ; ' ,
p. 85, n. 4 2 3 ) , belong to Philodemus' T v t a ^ i ? * (La Rassegna dei filosofi di Filodemo,
Rendiconti, Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti 5 5 [1980]: pp. 3 1 - 4 9 , and
now also IDEM, Filodemo: gli orientamenti della ricerca attuale, above in this same
volume [ A N R W II 36,4], p. 2 3 3 6 and IDEM, Filodemo storico del pensiero antico, below
in this same volume, pp. 2 4 0 7 - 2423). ADELE TEPEDINO GUERRA also assigns PHerc.
1780 to Philodemus' 'EVTC^K;', in: II icfjjio<; epicureo nel PHerc. 1780, CErc 10 (1980):
pp. 1 7 - 2 4 . DORANDI has examined the 'Index Academicorum' in: II papiro ercolanese
164, CErc 15 (1985): pp. 1 0 1 - 1 1 1 ; and in: Filodemo e la fine dell'Academia (PHerc.
1021 xxxiii xxxvi), CErc 16 (1986): pp. 113 118. GAISER has also discussed 'Index
Academicorum' in: La Biografia di Platone in Filodemo: Nuovi dati dal PHerc. 1021,
CErc 13 (1983): pp. 53 - 62; and in: Z u r Struktur des Papyrus Herculanensis 1021
(Philodems Buch ber die Akademie), C E r c 15 (1985): pp. 8 5 - 1 0 0 .

Authenticated
2376
ELIZABETH ASMIS
t i m e , w i t h friends in various p h i l o s o p h i c a l c a m p s ; and s u c h a p e r s o n m i g h t well

be P h i l o d e m u s . 2 1 O n balance, it is reasonable t o s u p p o s e that P h i l o d e m u s is the
a u t h o r o f the 'Indices'; but the question requires further study.
2. ' O n t h e Stoics'; ' O n Epicurus'; ' W o r k s o n the R e c o r d s o f E p i c u r u s a n d

s o m e others'; 'Against the ...'
In s t r i k i n g c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e d i s p a s s i o n a t e 'Indices', P h i l o d e m u s w r o t e
h i g h l y p a r t i s a n a c c o u n t s o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l history. H i s w o r k ' O n t h e S t o i c s '
('Ilepi TG)V ZTCOIKCOV', ' D e s t o i c i s ' ) , p r e s e r v e d in P H e r c . 155 a n d 3 3 9 , c o n t a i n s
a v e h e m e n t attack o n Z e n o a n d his p o l i t i c a l t h e o r y , as o u t l i n e d in his
' n o X i T e i a ' . 2 2 In t h e p o o r l y p r e s e r v e d t e x t , P h i l o d e m u s a r g u e s t h a t Z e n o s h o u l d
r e c e i v e n o p a r d o n f o r this y o u t h f u l w o r k , s i n c e h e p e r s i s t e d in h i s o p i n i o n s
t h r o u g h o u t his life (col. 9). C i t i n g n u m e r o u s e x a m p l e s o f s e x u a l p e r m i s s i v e n e s s , P h i l o d e m u s a t t e m p t s t o s h o w t h a t " n o n e o f t h e t h i n g s t h o u g h t n o b l e or
just" in Z e n o ' s p r o p o s e d city "is n o b l e by n a t u r e " (col. 2 0 . 1 7 2 0 ) .
21
22
The reference e[it'] apxovto<; Ttap' f||iiv Euyd|ioi) (or Et)|idxou, or Eu8d(ioo) in col.
2 6 . 4 2 - 4 3 of 'Index Academicorum' was regarded by F. B U C H E L E R (Academicorum
philosophorum Index Herculanensis, Index schol. in univ. litt. Gryphisw., 1 8 6 9 - 7 0 ,
p. 3) as a difficulty for the view that Philodemus is the author. B U C H E L E R concluded
that the authorship is uncertain. T h e year of the archonship is the date of the death of
Boethus of M a r a t h o n , about 120 B. C.; and the author must be either an Athenian or
someone writing at Athens. In a review of BUCHELER'S publication, in: Philologischer
Anzeiger2 (1870): pp. 2 2 - 2 8 , G O T T L I E B R O E P E R attempted to remove the difficulty
by showing that Philodemus is here excerpting iambic trimeters from the Athenian
chronographer, Apollodorus. R O E P E R ' S solution has generally been approved (for example, by M E K L E R , p. xxxi of his edition, and D O R A N D I , p. 35 of 'La Rassegna'; cf. I D E M ,
Filodemo storico del pensiero antico, below in this same volume (ANRW II 36,4), pp.
24112412. It seems to me difficult to suppose, however, that Philodemus omitted to
change the personal pronoun when borrowing from Apollodorus. It is possible that,
although Philodemus emigrated to Rome, he wrote the 'Index Academicorum' in Athens.
There seems to be no obstacle to taking the references to "us" in cols. 3 4 . 3 - 4 and
3 5 . 7 - 8 o f ' I n d e x Academicorum' as self-references by Philodemus. In the latter passage,
Philodemus would be numbering the Academics Ariston, Dion, and Cratippus (of
whom Ariston and Cratippus became Peripatetics) among his acquaintances ([au]vf|0[g]i<;
[f|]n[d)]v, col. 3 5 . 7 - 8 ) . Similarly in 'Index Stoicorum' the use of "I" in connection with
Thibron (col. 7 6 . 6 - 7 ) and the reference to "our friend" Apollonius Ptolemaeus (col.
78.2 3) could be references to Philodemus and his friends. It seems forced to refer
"our" in "our friend" to Stratocles, a source of Philodemus (as TRAVERSA, following
SUSEMIHL, suggests, p. xviii and pp. 9 9 - 100).
It has been edited by T I Z I A N O D O R A N D I , in: Filodemo, Gli Stoici (PHerc. 1 5 5 e 3 3 9 ) ,
CErc 1 2 ( 1 9 8 2 ) : pp. 9 1 - 1 3 3 ; cf. I D E M , Filodemo: gli orientamenti della ricerca attuale,
above in this same volume (ANRW II 3 6 , 4 ) , pp. 2 3 4 4 - 2 3 4 5 , and I D E M , Filodemo storico
del pensiero antico, below in this same volume, p. 2 4 2 1 . P H I L I P P S O N (col. 2 4 6 4 ) calls it
a 'Streitschrift'.
Authenticated
PHILODEMUS'
EPICUREANISM
2377
Very little is left o f P h i l o d e m u s ' ' r i e p i 'EjtiKoupou' ( ' D e E p i c u r o ' , P H e r c .

1232) a n d the s e c o n d b o o k of ( p r e s u m a b l y ) this w o r k , T l e p i 'EniKoOpou P'
( P H e r c . 1 2 8 9 ) . 2 3 F r a g m e n t 8 col. 1 of T l e p i 'Ejtucopou' c o n t a i n s an a d m o n i t i o n
t o E p i c u r e a n s n o t t o p r a c t i c e an " e m p t y d e m a g o g u e r y , d e v o i d of a k n o w l e d g e
o f p h y s i c s " w h e n inviting g u e s t s to a festival, b u t t o d o w h a t is " a p p r o p r i a t e
by n a t u r e " a n d t o r e m e m b e r all w h o are w e l l - d i s p o s e d to the E p i c u r e a n
s c h o o l . 2 4 E p i c u r e a n s a r e n o t to w o o the m o b , but to c h o o s e an e n t e r t a i n m e n t
a n d g u e s t s in c o n f o r m i t y with their p h i l o s o p h i c a l beliefs. P h i l o d e m u s ' ' W o r k s
o n the R e c o r d s o f E p i c u r u s a n d s o m e o t h e r s ' ( P H e r c . 1418 a n d 3 1 0 ) , k n o w n
by the a b b r e v i a t e d title ' n p a y n a i e i a i ' ( ' N e g o t i a ' ) , d e a l s with the early h i s t o r y
of the E p i c u r e a n s c h o o l a n d c o n t a i n s n u m e r o u s e x c e r p t s o f letters by E p i c u r u s
a n d his f r i e n d s . 2 5 A n o t h e r w o r k on the early h i s t o r y of E p i c u r e a n i s m , P H e r c .
176, which is p r e s e r v e d w i t h o u t the n a m e of the a u t h o r o r a title, w a s p e r h a p s
written by P h i l o d e m u s . T h i s t e x t a l s o c o n t a i n s e x c e r p t s f r o m letters by
Epicurus and others.26
A p e r s i s t e n t p r o b l e m within the E p i c u r e a n s c h o o l w a s the q u e s t i o n
whether t h e f o l l o w e r s a d h e r e d t o the p r e c e p t s o f E p i c u r u s . All f o l l o w e r s
insisted o n o b e d i e n c e t o E p i c u r u s ; but there w a s d i s a g r e e m e n t o n h o w t o o b e y
24
25
26
Both papyri were edited by ACHILLE VOGLIANO, in: Epicuri et Epicureorum scripta in
Herculanensibus papyris servata, Berlin 1928, pp. 57 73.
VOGLIANO calls this the "queen" of all columns preserved among the Herculanean papyri
(p. 126, 'Epicuri et Epicureorum scripta').
PHerc. 310 is a very badly preserved copy of PHerc. 1418. The latter has been edited
by LUIGI SPINA, in: Il trattato di Filodemo su Epicuro e altri (PHerc. 1418), CErc 7
(1977): pp. 4 3 - 8 3 . The subscript, preserved in PHerc. 1418, is <DiXoSr|noi) / ns[pi] tv
[.] 'Ettuc[o]6[pou xe] I KDI Tivtov X.X(o[v] / itpaynateiai (ivriiiftcov]. CARLO DIANO edited
the work in part in 'Lettere di Epicuro e dei suoi', Florence 1946. WERNER LIEBICH also
edited the work partially in 'Aufbau, Absicht und Form der Pragmateiai Philodems',
Berlin 1960.
VOGLIANO, who edited PHerc. 176 in 'Epicuri et Epicureorum scripta' (pp. 2 1 - 5 5 )
inclined to the view that the author was not Philodemus, but a contemporary of the
older Epicureans (ibid., p. 110). VOGLIANO notes, however, that the remark about
Polyainos in fr. 5 col. 24 (that his manner was such that he made philosophers from
other schools well disposed to him) agrees with Diogenes Laertius' report (10.24) that
Philodemus and his group regarded Polyainos as a friendly, decent person. In a review
of VOGLIANO'S preliminary edition of PHerc. 176 (Nuove lettere di Epicuro e dei suoi
scolari, Bologna 1928) in: Gnomon 4 (1928): pp. 384 - 395, PHILIPPSON argues that there
is no compelling reason not to attribute the papyrus to Philodemus (see also PHILIPPSON,
col. 2465). PHILIPPSON claims that the author is uncertain in fr. 5 col. 27 whether
Polyainos' date of birth or death is being celebrated, and that this uncertainty suggests
an author belonging to a later period (p. 387 of his review). PHILIPPSON'S arguments
would fall if CAVALLO (p. 57 of 'L.ibri scritture scribi a Ercolano') is correct in assigning
the handwriting of PHerc. 176 to the second century B. C., well before the time of
Philodemus.
It is plausible, as CRNERT maintains (p. 182), that PHerc. 1044, which is preserved
without a subscript and contains a life of the Epicurean Philonides (a contemporary of
the Epicureans Basileides and Thespis, and of the Academic Carneades), is also by
Philodemus.
Authenticated
2378
ELIZABETH
ASMIS
him. Throughout his writings, Philodemus depicts Epicurus and his closest
associates, particularly Metrodorus, Hermarchus, and Polyainos, as leaders
(KA0TIYE|K>ve<;, KCIOTIYTITCU) whose lives and doctrines provide a standard from
which their followers should not deviate. Although Philodemus feels free to
add new considerations and explore new areas, he is severe against those
Epicureans whom he perceives to be misinterpreting Epicurus and abandoning
his teachings.
PHerc. 1005, whose title is preserved only as 'npoq xouq . t h r o w s light
on the problem of canonization. It has been conjectured that the work is an
attack on certain Epicureans who, according to Diogenes Laertius (10.26),
were called aotpioxai by 'genuine Epicureans'. The title has been restored
accordingly as Tlpoq xoix; [aocpiaxdq]', 'Adversus [sophistas]'. An alternative
proposal is that the work is directed against the Stoics, or against the Stoic
Posidonius in particular, and that the title should be restored as npoq xoix;
[SxcoiKouq]', 'Adversus [Stoicos]'. 2 7 Most recently, it has been suggested that
the title should be read as 'Ilpoq xoix; [xaipouq]' or 'llpoq xouq [OUVTIGEII;]', in
the sense of 'To Friends of the School'. 2 8 In any case, the work contains an
attack on dissident Epicureans. At the same time, Philodemus' main target
seems to be a non-Epicurean who exploited differences among Epicureans to
r
See PHILIPPSON, c o l . 2 4 6 6 . T h e s u p p l e m e n t 'aocpiaxai;' in the title w a s suggested by

ACHILLF. VOGLIANO in ' N u o v i testi e p i c u r e i ' , Rivista di Filologia e di istruzione classica
5 4 (1926): pp. 3 7 - 4 8 ,
p. 3 7 , n . 1. VOGLIANO o p p o s e d H E R M A N N D I E L S , w h o n o t e d
that
the missing part o f the title w a s relatively short a n d p r o p o s e d Tlp6<; xoix; Xx(i)iicou<;\
VOGLIANO pointed o u t t h a t M e t r o d o r u s previously w r o t e a w o r k entitled Tlpo; xoix;
crotpiaxdi;' in nine b o o k s . FRANCESCO SBORDONE a c c e p t e d VOGLIANO'S p r o p o s a l in his
edition o f P H e r c . 1 0 0 5 , ' P h i l o d e m i adversus [ s o p h i s t a s ] ' , N a p l e s 1 9 4 7 . A b o u t the same
t i m e as SBORDONE published his e d i t i o n , VOGLIANO, in c o l l a b o r a t i o n with LETIZIA
SALVESTRONI, c h a n g e d his view a b o u t the title. In an article written jointly by VOGLIANO
a n d SALVESTRONI, 'Sulle o r m e di P o s i d o n i o ' (Parola del P a s s a t o 2 [ 1 9 4 7 ] : pp. 9 0 - 9 4 ) ,
VOGLIANO c l a i m s (p. 90) that the w o r k is a p o l e m i c a g a i n s t the S t o i c s , w h o should be
restored in the title, a n d p r o b a b l y a g a i n s t P o s i d o n i u s in particular. In the s a m e article,
SALVESTRONI argues (p. 93) t h a t in c o l . 10 (13 ANGELI) P h i l o d e m u s refers t o Posidonius
as the person w h o recounted t h e siege o f Athens by Sulla in 8 7 - 8 6 B . C . SALVESTRONI
b a c k s up this identification by n o t i n g t h a t the t e r m i n o l o g y ((tnkow f} auv[Tin]pev[o]v) at
c o l . 1 0 . 1 5 16 ( 1 3 . 1 5 16 ANGELI) is S t o i c . In 'Sulle o r m e di P o s i d o n i o ' (Rivista di Storia
della filosofia 3 [ 1 9 4 8 ] : pp. 1 - 7 ) , SALVESTRONI o f f e r s f u r t h e r a r g u m e n t s f o r the view
t h a t Posidonius is P h i l o d e m u s ' m a i n o p p o n e n t in the last p a r t o f the preserved papyrus.
S h e notes (p. 4) that PHILIPPSON (in an unpublished m a n u s c r i p t ) p r o p o s e d Posidonius
as P h i l o d e m u s ' o p p o n e n t . VOGLIANO and SALVESTRONI provide a d d i t i o n a l readings and
interpretations o f P H e r c . 1005 in ' P h i l o d e m e a ' , P r o l e g o m e n a 1 ( 1 9 5 2 ) : pp. 7 1 - 8 7 . As
SBORDONE s h o w s in his r e s p o n s e , ' P r i m i lineamenti d'un r i t r a t t o di F e d r o E p i c u r e o ' (Le
P a r o l e e le Idee 10 [ 1 9 6 8 ] : pp. 21 - 3 0 ) , it is n o t at all c e r t a i n w h e t h e r the person referred
t o in c o l . 10 (13) is P o s i d o n i u s . In d e f e n c e o f the title Tlpo; xoix; [oocpicrxdi;]', SBORDONE
m a k e s the alternative p r o p o s a l t h a t P h i l o d e m u s is a t t a c k i n g the E p i c u r e a n Phaedrus; but
this suggestion has virtually n o s u p p o r t in the t e x t .
28
T h i s suggestion is adopted by ANNA ANGELI in her n e w edition o f P H e r c . 1005: F i l o d e m o ,

Agli A m i c i di S c u o l a , N a p l e s 1 9 8 8 . ANGELI f o l l o w s GIGANTE in interpreting 7tpo<; as " t o "
r a t h e r than " a g a i n s t " and p r o p o s i n g fexaipou^ as a possible s u p p l e m e n t (p. 7 5 ) .

Authenticated
PHILODEMUS'
EPICUREANISM
2379
mount an attack of his own. We know from Philodemus' ' O n Rhetoric' that
there were deep divisions among the Epicureans of his time. 2 9
Throughout PHerc. 1005, Philodemus draws a sharp distinction between
the leaders of Epicureanism Epicurus and his associates and the followers.
He speaks of judging the
"ways of those who published CTUvidêiq after the death of Hermarchus
or, if anyone prefers, after the decease of all who heard Epicurus" (fr.
107.9-16
ANGELI).
It seems that a certain opponent boasted that there was a difference

between the writings of Epicurus and those of the younger Epicureans
(col. 1 2 . 7 - 1 2 ANGELI). Philodemus rejects the hypothesis that those " w h o
entered the sect after Hermarchus wished for and acted in similar ways"
by saying that he would sooner believe that "all men are black and small
and contorted" (col. 3.8 17). Apparently, Philodemus agrees with his
opponent that there has been a deterioration among Epicureans. He admits
(col. 2 . 6 - 1 5 ) :
"I agree . . . that some o f those who call themselves Epicureans say and
write many things that they have gathered, but also much that is their
own, yet not in agreement with the writings (rtpaynaxeiav)".
T h e 'writings' are presumably one or more works of the Epicurean leaders.
Philodemus accuses a person who claims to have drawn certain arguments
"from the b o o k s " (col. 5 . 1 4 - 1 6 ) of "babbling that Leontion and another
woman are mentioned in the writings (Ttpaynaxeia)" and that other love affairs
of Epicurus' friends are mentioned as well (col. 6.10 19). H e castigates this
type of research (col. 1 5 . 3 - 1 3 ) :
" T h e y blaspheme the lives, friendships, embraces, and associations with
diverse individuals, just as if they had not read the writings (icpaynateiav);
but they should be thought of immediately as enemies and rebuked for
their c h a r a c t e r " .
2*
See the discussion of 'On Rhetoric' below, pp. 2400 - 2402. Cicero attests that the
Epicureans differed among themselves on a number of issues. Cicero outlines three
different views on how t o prove the supreme good (De finibus 1.30 31), three views
on friendship (De finibus 1.66 70), and two views on the relationship of the virtues to
pleasure (De finibus 1.25). Whereas the disagreement on the first two issues seems to have
been conducted amicably among educated Epicureans, Cicero depicts the disagreement
concerning virtue as a conflict between the belief of the ignorant crowd (that virtue is
inherently pleasant) and the belief of the knowledgeable (that virtue is a means to
pleasure). This conflict might well be an example of how certain 'sophists' among the
Epicureans swayed the crowd by distorting genuine doctrine. It is possible that the
'sophists' among the Epicureans include Amafinius and other writers in Latin whom
Cicero denounces as illiterate popularizers (Tusculan Disputations 2 . 7 - 8 , 4.6 7, cf.
1.6). Cicero describes these Epicureans as people 'who want to be called philosophers'
(2.7) and who have 'taken over the whole of Italy' (4.7).
156 ANRW II 36.4

Authenticated
2380
ELIZABETH ASMIS
It seems that these opponents are Epicureans and that Philodemus wants
to expel them as enemies of the school. Just previously (col. 14.13 17),
Philodemus alleged that "the most wretched thing in the case of a number
of Epicureans" has to do with "inactivity (d[ve]vep7T|<jiav) in books".
To prevent misinterpretation, a person must be "taught systematically to
understand what is in the books of the leaders" (col. 6.1316). Philodemus
cites his teacher Zeno as someone who practiced the correct method. In
response to charges brought against the life and doctrine of Epicurus and his
friends, Zeno cited countless examples from their books (col. 1 0 . 8 - 1 5 ) .
Philodemus distinguishes between an advanced type of education, that teaches
one to unravel obscure writings (col. 1 3 . 3 - 1 5 ) , and the illiterate common
sense that allows even slaves to understand a "letter written by our leaders
to private individuals" (col. 17.6 9). To be a faithful follower of Epicurus,
it is not necessary to be erudite. But to do a proper exegesis of the leaders'
writing requires careful study.
III. Writings on Scientific Method: 'On Phenomena

and others
and
Inferences
PHerc. 1065 is a key text in the history of scientific method. It is also

one of the most important documents about the development of Epicurean
doctrine after Epicurus. Generally known as TlepiCTTi|ieicbCTiov',' O n Methods
of Inference' ('De signis'), the full title is probably Tlspi (paivonevtov tcai
aTineicbaecov' ('On Phenomena and Inferences'). 3 0 In this work, Philodemus
outlines Zeno's interpretation of Epicurus' scientific method. Zeno defended
Epicurus' method by arguing that it is wholly inductive and that induction,
moreover, is the only valid method of inference. Zeno's work on scientific
method is probably his most important contribution to Epicureanism and
Greek philosophy. Although Epicurus recognized induction as an important
component in scientific inference, Zeno appears to have been the first to
reduce all scientific inference to induction. 3 1
Tlepi CTT)nei(bce<ov' consists of a presentation of objections followed by
answers. From the beginning of the text to col. 8.21, Philodemus lists a series
of objections against the Epicurean use of induction. Next (cols. 8.21 19.4),
Philodemus presents Zeno's answers to these objections, as communicated to
30
31
PHILLIP H . D E LACY and ESTELLE A. D E LACY edited the papyrus, with translation,
commentary and essays, in 'Philodemus on Methods of Inference', rev. ed., Naples 1978.
This edition was reviewed by me in 'Ancient Philosophy' 6 (1986): pp. 251 - 2 5 5 . WALTER
SCOTT (Fragmenta Herculanensia, Oxford 1885, p. 37) noted that the remaining letters
are "decisively" in favor of the title Tlspi cpaivonevtov Kai crr||ieuboE(ov\
See chapter 11 ('Philodemus: Inference by Similarity'), pp. 1 9 7 - 2 1 1 of ASMIS, Epicurus'
Scientific Method, Ithaca, N.Y., 1984.

Authenticated
PHILODEMUS'
EPICUREANISM
2381
him by Zeno "in conversation with us" (f|niv ... 8[i]aXey6nevo(;, col. 19.4
5). In addition (cols. 19.9-28.13), Philodemus reports his friend Bromius'
recollection of the objections and answers proffered by Zeno. Last (cols.
28.13 38.23), Philodemus adds a summary by Zeno's contemporary, Demetrius Lacon. It is likely that Demetrius' summary was another version of
Zeno's defence of Epicurean science. The fact that Philodemus reports more
than one version of Zeno's answers attests the importance of Zeno's innovations.
The Epicureans proposed to use the phenomena as signs (<TT|îa) of
things that cannot be observed (id a6T|A.a). According to their critics, they
used two methods of signification. One is the deductive method called "contraposition", avaCTKeufi, as exemplified by the argument: "if there is no void,
there is no motion"; "there is motion"; therefore "there is void". The other
is the method of induction, "inference by similarity", f| Kcrtd to onoiov jiETaPaCTiq. For example, after observing in the case of numerous human beings that
they are mortal, we infer by similarity that all humans are mortal. The critics
maintained that only the deductive method is valid. Against them, Zeno
argued that induction is not only valid, but also the only valid method of
scientific inference, since it underlies the so-called deductive method. To
demonstrate the pervasiveness of induction, Zeno proposed to reformulate all
arguments by contraposition as inductive arguments.
Philodemus does not seem to have made a personal contribution to
Epicurean scientific method, except to pass on the work of his admired teacher,
Zeno. Two other works by Philodemus, one of which is subtitled 'From the
lectures of Zeno', contain a few remarks about scientific method. 32 Philodemus
is probably also the author of a work on perception, preserved in PHerc. 19
together with PHerc. 698. 33
/V. Theological
Writings: 'On Piety'; 'On the Gods'; 'On the Way of Life
of the Gods'
Philodemus' 'Ilepi euaeeiaq', 'On Piety', consists of two parts (possibly

books). 34 The first is a detailed exposition of the erroneous beliefs of poets
32
PHerc. 1389 (with the title 'Kax[ xfj] [7to5]ei[!;]eci) ic xv Zf|vvo c x o X v ' ) and
33
WALTER SCOTT edited these papyri, which belong to the same roll, in 'Fragmenta
Herculanensia', pp. 253 305. SCOTT (p. 256) notes that "the style (or the want o f style)
is suggestive of Philodemus". See also PHILIPPSON, col. 2453.
THEODOR GOMPERZ edited the work in: Herkulanische Studien 2: Philodem ber Frmmigkeit, part 1 (text), Leipzig 1866. T h e proposed second instalment (a commentary)
was never published. ALBERT HENRICHS discusses the state o f the text in 'Toward a new
edition of Philodemus' Treatise on Piety', Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 13 (1972):
pp. 67 98. HENRICHS edited the section of criticism on the Stoics in 'Die Kritik der
1 0 0 3 ; see PHILIPPSON c o l . 2 4 5 1 - 2 4 5 3 .
34
156

Authenticated
2382
ELIZABETH
ASMIS
and philosophers. After illustrating the views of numerous poets, Philodemus

outlines, in roughly chronological sequence, the opinions of philosophers
from the Presocratics to the Stoic Diogenes of Babylon. In the second part,
Philodemus sets out Epicurus' views about piety. T h e treatise as a whole is a
defence of Epicurus' piety. Philodemus defends Epicurus by showing, first,
how impious the poets and other philosophers have been, and, second, how
pious Epicurus' beliefs are.
T h e treatise is organized along the same lines as Cicero's account o f
Epicurean theology in ' D e natura deorum'. Cicero's Epicurean spokesman
Velleius first exposes the wrong beliefs of philosophers (1.18 41), with a
summary reference to poets (1.42), then sets out Epicurus' theology ( 1 . 4 3 56). T h e similarities between Philodemus' and Cicero's criticisms of the philosophers suggest that Cicero and Philodemus drew on a c o m m o n source. 3 5
In the second part o f 'Flepi ei>cePia<;\ Philodemus responds to the charge
of impiety by reciting the attributes o f god as though in a hymn:
" [ T h e Epicureans say that god is] best of all that exists, most august,
most worthy of emulation, in control of all good things, without troubles
(Kd[jtpay]ndxeuTov), exalted, high-minded, great of soul, holy, most holy,
gracious. T h a t is why they say that they alone have striven for the greatest
piety and have the most holy beliefs about the gods, and accuse others of
the opposite, as having beliefs that are in conflict with the preconception
(TtpoXiivei) [of god]." (fr. 6 6 . 6 - 2 6 , p. 9 6 G O M P E R Z )
As Epicurus asserts in the 'Letter to Menoeceus' (123124) and Velleius
reminds the audience in Cicero's ' D e natura deorum' (1.43 45), the foundation of piety is the preconception (jcpoXr|*|H<;) of god as an "indestructible,
blessed living being". T h e Epicureans maintained that they alone are genuinely
pious, because they alone did not assign to god any attributes that are
inconsistent with this preconception. In his list of divine attributes, Philodemus
has mixed, in careful gradation, attributes commonly used in the worship of
Stoischen Theologie im PHerc. 1428', C E r c 4 (1974): pp. 5 - 3 2 . PHerc. 1428 contains

the final section of the first part of the work; it embraces the last part of the criticism
of poets and the entire section of criticism of philosophers. T h e subscript of PHerc. 1428
shows only the first letter, <!>, of the author. It was suggested by HAYTER and others
that the author was Phaedrus; but there is no reason not to assign the work to Philodemus
(see the letter of GOMPERZ to HERMANN DIELS, in: DIELS, Doxographi graeci, Berlin
1929, pp. 5 2 9 - 5 3 0 ) .
35
DIELS provides an overview of the similarities by printing sections of Philodemus'

Tlepi suaePeiai;' and Cicero's 'De natura deorum' in parallel columns (pp. 531 5 5 0 , 'Doxographi graeci'). There has been much discussion concerning Cicero's and
Philodemus' sources. DIELS conjectures that Philodemus and Cicero drew on Phaedrus
as a c o m m o n source (ibid., p. 127). It is plausible, as PHILIPPSON suggests (col. 2 4 6 3 ) ,
that Philodemus is indebted to Z e n o ' s Tlepi ei>aepeia<;\ Philodemus refers to Z e n o in
part 2, fr. 100.18, p. 118 GOMPERZ. HENRICHS proposes that Philodemus' criticisms of
the poets may be traced back to Apollodorus' Tlepi Gecov' (Philodems 'De pietate' als
mythographische Quelle, C E r c 5 [1975]: pp. 5 38).

Authenticated
PHILODEMUS' EPICUREANISM
2383
gods with attributes that are more or less distinctively Epicurean. T h e most
distinctive trait is jtpayuxeuiov, not busying oneself with affairs. Far from
subverting religion, Philodemus argues, the Epicureans are the preservers o f
true piety. W h e r e a s others have contaminated the worship of gods with false
beliefs, the Epicureans are keepers of a genuine tradition of piety.
In particular, Philodemus maintains, Epicurus was a pious citizen who
supported the religious institutions of the state. M o r e o v e r , his fellow Athenians
recognized this piety:
" . . . w i t h o u t inflicting pain, so that he had no law-suit or even dispute
with a n y o n e . Although some philosophers were prosecuted on account
of their life and doctrines, and some were expelled from their city or
confederation and were put to death, and all were ridiculed in comedy,
Epicurus a l o n e , together with those w h o lived genuinely with him, kept
himself safe . . . and did not even fall victim to the vituperative, injurious
mouth o f c o m e d y . " (p. 9 3 . 3 - 2 8 GOMPERZ)
T h i s claim p r o v o k e d the objection that the Athenians just weren't aware o f
Epicurus' philosophy (p. 94.16 19) and of the harm he and his c o m p a n i o n s
did (p. 1 1 7 . 1 3 2 1 ) . We k n o w from C i c e r o ' s ' D e natura d e o r u m ' that some
people, including the S t o i c Posidonius, accused Epicurus o f faking a belief in
the gods in order to escape the hatred o f the Athenians. 3 6 T h e r e is no explicit
mention o f this charge in Philodemus' e x t a n t text. B u t perhaps Philodemus
alludes t o the harshness o f these opponents when he says that s o m e critics
allege " m o r e g e n t l y " that, although the Epicureans proclaim w h a t they consider to be true and productive o f tranquillity, ordinary people regard such
people as impious and punish them, just as the Athenians (the m o s t educated
o f all people) did in the case o f Socrates (p. 9 5 . 1 0 - 2 9 ) . 3 7 Philodemus insists
that Epicurus did n o h a r m to anyone and was a law-abiding citizen w h o
participated in all the city's festivals (pp. 118, 1 2 6 - 1 2 8 ) . Against the charge
that Epicurus deprived g o o d and just people o f hope in the gods (p. 9 4 . 1 9
25), he asserts t h a t Epicurus bestowed the greatest benefit on them by liberating
them from the tyranny o f mythical gods: instructed by Epicurus, they will
wish to imitate the happiness o f the gods without inflicting harm on anyone
(pp. 145 148). E p i c u r e a n religion is n o t only a personal salvation, but also
the salvation o f cities.
In his criticism of Epicurean theology, Cicero's spokesman Cotta notes (De natura
deorum 1 . 8 5 ) : video nonrtullis videri Epicurum, ne in offensionem Atheniensium caderet,
verbis reliquisse deos, re sustulisse ("I see that some people think that Epicurus kept the
gods in word, but eliminated them in fact, in order not to offend the Athenians"). Later
(1.123), Cotta names Posidonius as one of these accusers.
>7 The text at fr. 6 5 . 1 3 - 1 4 (p. 95) is doubtful, but GOMPERZ'S two insertions in line 14
are forced. I translate lines 1 4 - 1 9 : ... "we [the Epicureans], in asserting our dogmas as
[dogmas that are] true and productive of our own tranquillity".
Authenticated
2384
ELIZABETH ASM IS
T h e first book of Philodemus ' O n the G o d s ' (Tlepi 0ea>v'), preserved in

PHerc. 26, consists of two topics, each treated comparatively. 3 8 Philodemus
first compares the emotional disturbances of humans with disturbances in
irrational animals. He concludes that humans are better off because reason,
ôyicjuoq, allows them to recognize the causes and so be healed (col. 15).
Second, he discusses (without a clear conclusion) whether the fear of the
gods or the fear of death is worse (col. 16.18 col. 25). T h e close type of
argumentation, with its use of analogy, is reminiscent of Zeno, who also wrote
a work ' O n the Gods'.
PHerc. 152 together with PHerc. 157 contains the third book of Philodemus' ' O n the Way of Life of the Gods', 'Ilepi XFJ<; TGJV 0etov Siaycoyfiq'.39 It
is a carefully argued discussion of various aspects of divine existence, including
their corporeality, immortality, motion, rest, breathing, and speech. T h e work,
which is probably also strongly indebted to Z e n o , appears to be a response
to Stoic and Academic demands that the Epicureans be more specific about
the life of their alleged gods. 4 0 M a n y details about the Epicurean gods are
treated only here. 41
V. Ethical
Writings
1. ' O n Vices and Virtues': Book 7 ('On Flattery'); Book 9 ('On Household
Management'); Book 10 ('On Arrogance')
Among Philodemus' ethical writings, his multi-volume work ' O n Vices
and the opposing virtues, and the persons in w h o m they are and about w h a t '
38
39
40
41
HERMANN DIELS edited the book, with commentary, in: Philodemus ber die Gtter,
Erstes Buch, Abhandlungen der k. preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaften, part 7 (1915), Berlin
1916. KNUT KLEVE points out the need for a new edition, based on an inspection of the
original papyrus (which DIELS did not see), in: Zu einer Neuausgabe von Philodemos,
ber die Gtter, Buch 1 (PHerc. 26), CErc 3 (1973): pp. 8 9 - 9 1 .
DIELS edited this text as book 3 of 'On the Gods': Philodemos ber die Gtter, Drittes
Buch, Abhandlungen der k. preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaften, part 4 (1916), with a
commentary in part 6 (1916), Berlin 1917. The title is only partially preserved; there is
a gap in the middle of the title: [n]epi TIJ[<; . . . T<BV 0]e<5v 8taycoy[fji;] y' (DIELS, p. 4 1 of
the edition). It is not clear how 'Ilepi ... Siaywyfji;', in at least three books, is related
to Tlepi 9eojv'; see PHILIPPSON col. 2460 - 2461. Following DIELS, scholars have generally
referred to book 3 of 'Ilepi ... Siaycoyfji;' as book 3 of 'On the Gods'.
Cicero mentions these demands in 'De natura deorum' 1.50 51 and 65. For a brief
introduction to the vast literature on the problems raised in Philodemus' treatise, see
pp. 3 1 6 - 3 2 0 of ASMIS, Epicurus' Scientific Method (n. 31 above).
Another work by Philodemus, PHerc. 1670, deals with providence. The very sparse
remains have been edited by MATILDE FERRARIO, in: Filodemo 'Sulla provvidenza'?
( P H e r c . 1 6 7 0 ) , C E r c 2 ( 1 9 7 2 ) : p p . 6 7 - 9 4 . S e e a l s o PHILIPPSON, c o l . 2 4 6 3 .

Authenticated
PHILODEMUS'
EPICUREANISM
2385
(Tlepi KOKICOV Kai xcov &vTiKEi|ivcov dpexcov Kai TCDV V OTQ eioi Kai Jtepi a')
occupies a m a j o r place. 4 2 T h e following books have been preserved: B o o k 7
(PHerc. 2 2 2 ) , 'Ilepi Koôticeiac;' ('De adulatione' or ' D e assentatione', ' O n
Flattery'); B o o k 9 (PHerc. 1424), 'Ilepi 0iK0V0nict<;' ('De o e c o n o m i a ' , ' O n
Household M a n a g e m e n t ' ) ; and Book 10 (PHerc. 1008), 'Ilepi ujtepr|<pavia<;'
('De arrogantia', ' O n Arrogance'). Very little of b o o k 7 is preserved. 4 3
Book 9, ' O n Household M a n a g e m e n t ' , 'Ilepi oiKovonia?', is one of the
jewels o f Philodemus' writings. 4 4 It is not only well written, but reveals
something of the personal aspirations of Philodemus. As in ' O n Piety' and
elsewhere in his writings, Philodemus begins by criticizing others, then outlines
the Epicurean view. F r o m beginning to end, the treatment is very methodical.
T h e critical section consists of two parts: first, a criticism o f X e n o p h o n ' s
OtKovoniKoq' (col. 1col. 7.37); second, a criticism o f T h e o p h r a s t u s ' Tlepi
oiKovonicu;' (cols. 7 . 3 7 1 2 . 3 ) . In the rest o f the b o o k (cols. 12.3 28.10),
Philodemus presents the Epicurean position. H e first reports M e t r o d o r u s '
conclusions, then works out answers of his o w n . T h e subject o f inquiry
throughout the work is: h o w does a philosophical person manage his financial
affairs?
T h r o u g h o u t his criticisms, especially in the section on Theophrastus,
Philodemus stays very close to the opponent's t e x t . H e accuses Socrates in
X e n o p h o n ' s work o f forcing the meaning o f words, in particular, o f taking
" g o o d oiicovonia" to imply "living well in one's house and making another
live well", that is, o f living and making another live a morally upright life,
regardless o f financial standing (cols. 1 5 ) . Socrates, he claims, does not use
terms in their ordinary sense (jipoA.T|7mKdjq, col. 5 . 3 ) , but attaches to them his
own opinions. Philodemus criticizes both X e n o p h o n and T h e o p h r a s t u s for
assigning t o o much importance to the wife; he denies that a wife is necessary
42
43
PHILIPPSON draws a distinction between Philodemus' 'ethical works' and his 'diatribes',
which he considers to be more popular writings (pp. 2460, 2467 2474). Although the
style of Philodemus' ethical writings varies greatly, they cannot be separated into technical
and popular works. The only work of any compass that PHILIPPSON assigns to the
category of 'ethical writings' is the 'Comparetti Ethics', which is clearly written in a
popular style and is described by PHILIPPSON himself as resembling a 'diatribe'.
TRISTANO GARGIULO edited the remains in 'PHerc. 222: Filodeme sull'Adulazione', CErc
11 (1981): pp. 1 0 3 - 1 2 7 . PHerc. 1082, 1089, 1457, and 1675 also seem to belong to this
book. The fragments of PHerc. 1457 are discussed by EIKO KONDO in 'Per l'interpretazione del pensiero sulla adulazione nel PHerc. 1457', CErc 4 (1974): pp. 43 - 56. PHerc.
1675 was edited by VITTORIO DE FALCO in: Appunti sul 'Ilepi KoXatceiaq' di Filodemo.
P a p . ere. 1 6 7 5 , Rivista I n d o - G r e c o - I t a l i c a 1 0 ( 1 9 2 6 ) : pp. 1 5 - 2 6 .
44
The subscript of the papyrus, PHerc. 1424, shows the title only as book 9 of 'On Vices
and the opposing virtues, and the persons in whom they are and about what'; but the
subject matter is clearly household management and the book has traditionally been
known as 'Ilepi oiKovonim;'. CHRISTIAN JENSEN edited the work (Philodemi Ilepi
oiKovo|iia<;, Leipzig 1906). RENATO LAURENTI offers a detailed discussion of the work,
with suggestions about the text, in: Filodemo e il pensiero economico degli Epicurei,
Milan 1973. His book was reviewed by MATILDE FERRARIO, in: Una nuova edizione
dell'opera filodemea sull'economia, CErc 6 (1976); pp. 92 95.

Authenticated
2386
ELIZABETH
ASMIS
for a happy life (col. 9.1 3; cf. col. 2.8 - 12). He also claims that his opponents
include much more in the subject o f household management than the knowledge required by a philosopher.
In the constructive part of 'Ilepi oiKOvoniai;', Philodemus first defines his
subject matter:
" W e will discuss (SiaXe^nsGa), not how one can live nobly in a house
(v oKcp KaX.>[<;] ... |3ioGv), but how one should stand concerning the
acquisition and preservation of money, which is the proper meaning
of oiKovo(iia and OKOVO|IK<;, without disputing those who choose to
subordinate different [meanings] to these words; and concerning not the
[sort of] acquisition that is requisite for anyone at all, but that which is
requisite for a philosopher. T h e philosopher has a measure (nxpov) of
wealth, which we, following our leaders, presented in the work ' O n
Wealth' (icepi JIA.OTOU). Therefore, it is stated that household management
is about the acquisition and preservation of this [measure]." (Col. 1 2 . 5 25).
T h e use of 6iaXe^jxe0a shows that Philodemus regards his book as a discussion, not a doctrinaire statement of a position. T h i s is his view of his
philosophical writings in general. Although his works are not cast in the
dramatic form of a dialogue, they are intended as a dialectical response to
other thinkers. In 'Ilepi oiKovonaq', Philodemus engages in a dialogue with
X e n o p h o n , Theophrastus, and (in the main part of his exposition) the Cynics. 4 5
Philodemus conducts his discussion by adopting a dialectical precept
proposed by Plato in the 'Phaedrus'. Before he begins his inquiry, he defines
his topic. In opposition to X e n o p h o n ' s Socrates, he rejects the definition of
'oiKOVOnia' as "living nobly in a house". Instead, he proposes to use the term
in its proper sense. Philodemus says that he doesn't care whether others attach
different meanings to the term. In fact, as he shows in his criticism of Socrates,
Philodemus does care whether philosophers force the meaning of words. Later
in the text, he insists that one must look to the ordinary conception, jtpX.r|\)/i<;,
that corresponds to the expression "good businessman" (yaQq XPTIH 0 * 1 0 *^)
in order to determine what sort of person fits that description; and he accuses
other philosophers, and Aristotle in particular, of ignoring this conception
and importing their own assumptions, like sophists (cols. 20.1 - 2 1 . 3 2 ) . In the
present passage, Philodemus is concerned to determine the subject matter o f
the discussion. He does not care about the terminology, because his aim is to
secure agreement on the subject matter, not the terminology. W h a t he does
not permit is to disguise one's own assumptions as meanings.
Philodemus attempts to avoid importing illegitimate assumptions by
carefully setting out both the meaning of 0IK0V0|IIA (OKOVO|IK<;) and his
assumption that there is a proper measure of wealth. In stating his assumption,
Philodemus immediately signifies his agreement with the 'leaders' of Epicurean45
At col. 7 . 3 9 , Philodemus uses the t e r m [8iiX]y|i0a t o refer t o his criticism of X e n o p h o n

and Theophrastus.

Authenticated
2387
ism. Both Epicurus and M e t r o d o r u s wrote b o o k s ' O n Wealth'. M e t r o d o r u s '

book (which Philodemus cites in the next sentence, col. 12.26 27) is a m a j o r
source of P h i l o d e m u s ' 'Ilspi OKOVOHCK;' and presumably also o f his b o o k ' O n
Wealth'. 4 6 F o l l o w i n g Epicurus and M e t r o d o r u s , Philodemus holds that there
is a measure, or limit, that demarcates " n a t u r a l " (puaitcq) wealth; this limit
coincides with the limits of natural desire. 4 7
After defining the subject matter, Philodemus first raises a topic (tcmoi;,
col. 12.28) that w a s discussed at length in M e t r o d o r u s ' ' O n Wealth'. Following
M e t r o d o r u s , Philodemus treats the topic as a thesis, against which he argues.
His discussion is a reply to "those who will say, perhaps, that the Cynics have
chosen by far the least burdensome and easiest way of life" (col. 12.30 32)
by restricting their material resources to what is sufficient for the day. T h i s
dialectical m e t h o d o f putting forward a thesis, then arguing against it, was
practiced widely in the Hellenistic period, especially by the Academics. Philodemus' text is evidence that the Epicureans, too, practiced it from the earliest
period.
Philodemus argues against the Cynics that natural wealth gives less
trouble to those w h o acquire and preserve it than does poverty. T h e temperate
person, he says, k n o w s that he can deal with the requirements o f nature (T
cpuCTiKv, col. 16.3) even if poor, but "inclines in his wishes t o w a r d a m o r e
affluent way o f life" (jbertei 5 tr PouX.f|crei nAAov rci TT]V cpflovcoTpav, sc.
SiatTiv, col. 1 6 . 4 - 6). T h i s distinction agrees with Epicurus' division o f desires
into natural a n d necessary, natural and unnecessary, and unnatural and unnecessary. A l t h o u g h poverty suffices for the satisfaction o f the class o f natural
and necessary desires, the wise person prefers to be affluent enough to indulge
also unnecessary desires, provided that they are natural. J u s t as it is worth
taking s o m e t r o u b l e to assure one's health, and it is worth taking trouble t o
have friends, s o it is w o r t h the trouble t o have m o d e r a t e wealth (col. 13.11
19).
It follows t h a t , since the philosopher does n o t aim t o have a lot o f money,
he does not need t o be an expert in managing his finances. Philodemus argues
that just as there are t w o kinds o f cookery, a non-technical kind that suffices
for one's personal needs, as well as technical expertise, so household management is of t w o kinds, and the non-technical kind suffices for the philosopher
(col. 1 7 . 2 - 4 0 ) .
After summarizing the topics treated by M e t r o d o r u s (cols. 2 1 . 3 5 - 2 2 . 6 ) ,
Philodemus p r o p o s e s t o " t a k e up s o m e [questions] on where and h o w one
should procure and preserve [possessions]" (col. 2 2 . 6 9). It is n o w Philodemus' turn t o m a k e s o m e contributions of his o w n . T h e change t o the
46
Philodemus' Tlepi TIXOTOU' is preserved in PHerc. 163, PHerc. 200, and possibly PHerc.
9 7 ; see PHILIPPSON c o l . 2 4 7 1 . ADELE T . GUERRA edited t h e r e m a i n s o f P H e r c . 1 6 3 in: II
primo libro 'Sulla Ricchezza' di Filodemo, CErc 8 (1978): pp. 52 95.

Epicurus contrasts natural wealth ( tfjs cpaeox; nXomoc,), which has a limit and is easy
to acquire, with the "wealth of empty opinions" in 'Rupia 8â' 15. Philodemus uses
the expression '(poatKoq nXoiixoq at col. 1 4 . 1 9 .
Authenticated
2388
ELIZABETH ASMIS
first person pronoun in "let us say following [him]" (ruiepq] 8e [AJeyconev

&KoA.oi)0oOvrei;, col. 22.17 18) indicates that, although Philodemus recognizes
Metrodorus as leader, he will add some thoughts of his own. In this final
section, Philodemus gives a more practical turn to the discussion by considering
the financial position of a philosopher, such as himself, in a community of
friends.
Concerning the sources of income, he argues that the best source of an
income is not war: this is the domain of politicians and practical men, not o f
contemplative persons who seek the truth (cols. 22.18 23.1). Neither is it
appropriate to seek an income from horsemanship, metallurgy, or both, or
from farming with one's own hands (col. 2 3 . 1 - 9 ) . Philodemus then turns
around: it is appropriate to farm by having others do the work (col. 2 3 . 9 11). T h i s occupation allows a person to lead an Epicurean life, enjoying the
company o f friends in a retreat that is free of strife:
" H e [the gentleman farmer] has, least of all, personal involvements that
lead to many unpleasant situations, and [he has] a delightful way of life
and a leisurely retreat with friends and a most seemly revenue among
temperate people." (Col. 2 3 . 1 1 - 1 8 )
It is also appropriate, Philodemus writes, to earn money from a tenement
(ouvoiKia) and from slaves or persons practicing suitable skills (col. 23.18
22).
T h e n , in a carefully constructed climax, Philodemus reveals the best
source of income:
"But these are second and third. It is first and most beautiful to receive
gratitude, along with all reverence, in return for philosophical discourses
(A-oyiov (ptA.o[cj6](pov) shared with receptive men, as happened to Epicurus,
[discourses that are], for the rest, true, free of strife, and in sum free of
turmoil, since what is effected through sophistic and contentious [discourses] (8ia ao<p[iaTi]KG)v Kai dyamcm[K](v) is no better than what
is effected through the [discourses] o f demagogues and informers (8ia
8t|[hok]o7uk<bv Kai av>Ko<pavTiK[ajv]." (Col. 23.22 36)
T h e right ways to make money are in order of merit: first, to share philosophical discourses with others; second, to be a gentleman farmer; third, to manage
a reputable business. T h e best way to make a living is to live as a contemplative
person, sharing philosophical discourses with others. Using the c o m m o n p l a c e
contrast between philosophical and rhetorical discourse, Philodemus gives it
his own, Epicurean interpretation. H e characterizes philosophical discourse as
true, non-combative, and full o f tranquillity; for its aim is to produce peace
o f mind. Sophistic discourse is identical with the epideictic branch of rhetoric;
and Philodemus describes it pejoratively as 'contentious' (&ycovigtik<v), concerned to win a contest. He alludes to the other two branches o f rhetoric,
deliberative and forensic, by using the pejorative terms 'SrinoKoitiKcov' (belonging to demagogues) and 'auKocpavxiK[dv]' (belonging to informers). As Philodemus indicated earlier, sophistic discourse is a perversion o f the truth. False
Authenticated
PHILODEMUS'
EPICUREANISM
2389
and self-serving, it is no better than the prejudiced, divisive discourse of

politicians and speakers in a court of law.
Epicurus said that the wise man will make money, but only "from his
wisdom, if he is in need". 4 8 In constructing his hierarchy of occupations,
Philodemus probably had in mind this saying, as well as Epicurus' practical
affairs; but he is undoubtedly also thinking of his own position. He composed
philosophical writings for people such as Piso; and he expected both an income
and honor in return. Fittingly, Philodemus includes his patrons in his scheme.
While he accords first place to the philosopher, he accommodates the philosopher's patron as either a gentleman farmer or a businessman. What makes all
three occupations worthwhile is the leisure to be with friends, and, in general,
to enjoy an Epicurean way of life.
Concerning the manner of making and keeping money, Philodemus continues to emphasize the importance of friendship. Although friendship might
be thought to diminish one's income, sharing it with friends is in fact essential
to its acquisition and preservation (cols. 24.19 25.4). As Hermarchus showed,
caring for friends and others is more profitable than caring for one's fields:
friends are "the safest treasures with respect to fortune" (cols. 24.46 - 25.4).
In prosperity, people should gratify both themselves and their friends. In
adversity, it is even more important to satisfy our friends' needs than our
own:
"Just as in more generous circumstances people should indulge harmless
desires for themselves and their friends, so in times of severe depletion
they should fight back with restrictions that are not unsuitable to a free
person, more with restrictions for themselves than for their friends; and
they should not be ashamed to set aside times for review and consultation
with a few persons, and for making calculations, nor think that they are
taking [these times] away from philosophy." (Col. 26.1 14)
In times of a severe economic setback, the time that would ordinarily be given
to philosophy needs to be set aside for economic consultations; this is nothing
to be ashamed of. 4 9 Philodemus envisages a life in which friends enjoy
philosophical leisure with each other and indulge their natural desires as much
as their financial circumstances allow. In times of need, people must restrict
their desires; and even though they may not have time for philosophical
discussion, they will still act on philosophical principles by putting the needs
of their friends above their own. In both prosperity and adversity, it is
important not to make decisions on one's own, but to consult with one's
48
49
Diogenes Laertius 10.120.

M y interpretation of this passage differs from that of LAURENTI (pp. 175 - 1 7 6 of
'Filodemo e il pensiero e c o n o m i c o degli Epicurei'), w h o takes jti(TK8\)/ei(; and nape8peia<;
(col. 2 6 . 9 - 1 0 ) respectively as "salutations" and "visits" (such as with the sick). As I
interpret the passage, Philodemus goes o n to point out that "[spending] more [time on
financial consultations than one should] (TO ... 7tXeovaôv) is disgraceful, but to the
extent that it is useful, it is seemly and there is nothing disgraceful" (col. 2 6 . 1 5 - 1 8 ) .

Authenticated
2390
ELIZABETH
ASMIS
friends (col. 2 6 . 1 8 - 2 8 ) . In sum, friends are so important that one must make
sure that they will be provided for upon one's death, just like one's own
children (col. 2 7 . 6 - 9 ) .
Philodemus concludes Tlepi oiKovoniaq' by defending his approach to the
subject (col. 27.12 to end). First (col. 27.12 - 20), he concedes that if Xenophon
or Theophrastus said something that a philosopher can approve of, we should
appropriate it: we should be more ashamed of rejecting something useful than
of borrowing it. T h i s acknowledgement justifies the initial critical section. In
keeping with his notion of philosophical discourse, Philodemus proposes to
criticize others, not in a spirit of contention, in order to uncover their mistakes,
but in order to learn from them.
Second, if anyone blames him for writing on household management, he
is only following Epicurus and Metrodorus, the latter of whom treated the
subject in detail (col. 27.20 29). It would be more reasonable, he says, to
accuse him of not writing enough on a subject that confers considerable
benefit (col. 27.35 39). His reply to this complaint is that
"tranquil household management does not require hair-splitting attention,
and wealth is only a little superior to poverty" (col. 2 7 . 4 1 - 4 5 ) .
T h e subject demands a broad treatment, which he will continue to supply in
writing on such subjects as wealth and poverty, a luxurious and a frugal way
of life, and choice and avoidance (cols. 2 7 . 4 6 - 2 8 . 1 0 ) . In agreement with his
view that the philosopher does not require expert economic knowledge,
Philodemus treats the subject of household management broadly as an ethical
problem.
Book 10 of ' O n Vices and Virtues', 'Ilepi 7tEp7i<pavaq' ('On Arrogance'),
contains little that is distinctively Epicurean. 5 0 It demonstrates that Philodemus
was not reluctant to take over philosophical material from outside the Epicurean school whenever it was compatible with Epicureanism. Philodemus
summarizes at some length (cols. 1 0 . 1 0 - 16.28) the methods advocated by the
Peripatetic Aristn of Ceos (in the third century B. C.) to lighten arrogance. 5 1
Afterwards (col. 16.29 to the end, col. 34), he draws on Ariston's analyses of
character types, chiefly: the stubborn person (aoGSiq); the blunt person
edited the work in 'Philodemi riepi KaKiwv liber decimus', Leipzig
1911. JENSEN subsequently re-edited the first part of the papyrus (fr. 1 - col. 10.10) in
'Ein neuer Brief Epikurs', Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gttingen, philol.-hist. Klasse, ser. 3, n. 5, Berlin 1933, with the proposal that in this section
Philodemus is excerpting a letter by Epicurus. Although the subscript of P H e r c . 1008
shows only Tlept Kaiawv i', the title Tlepi 7tEpr|(pava<;' is readily supplied (see P H I L I P P SON p. 2471). In 'Bemerkungen zu einer Neuausgabe von Philodem, De vitiis X (PHerc.
1008)', C E r c 17 (1987): pp. 3 5 - 3 8 , EDELTRAUD DRR discusses the history of the
papyrus.
50
CHRISTIAN JENSEN
51
In his article 'Aristn von Keos bei Philodem' (Hermes 46 [1911]: pp. 393 - 4 0 6 ) , JENSEN
argues in detail that Philodemus summarized and excerpted the w o r k of Aristn in the
latter half of the preserved text. WILHELM KNGEL develops JENSEN'S position further
in 'Der Peripatetiker Aristn von Keos bei Philodem', Leipzig 1933.

Authenticated
PHILODEMUS'
EPICUREANISM
2391
(a0KaCTio); the all-knower (TtavteiSiincov), as exemplified by the sophist

Hippias; the haughty person (cenvoKTro); and the ironic person (epwv), as
exemplified by Socrates.
2. 'COMPARETTI E t h i c s ' ; ' O n D e a t h '
Philodemus provides an introduction to ethics in an untitled work,

preserved in PHerc. 1251 and k n o w n as the 'COMPARETTI Ethics' in honor of
its first editor. 52 Philodemus here presents the Epicurean view of the human
goal (tA-o) as a middle ground between two extremes, the Cyrenaic and Stoic
positions (col. 3). Whereas the Cyrenaics advocate the indiscriminate pursuit
of pleasure and the Stoics wish to eradicate pleasure altogether, the Epicureans
propose the rational, measured pursuit of pleasure. Ethics must be based on
physics (col. 13.12 17). Most important is a knowledge of the fundamental
principles that Epicurus places at the start of his 'Kpiai Sâi' (col. 15.15
16), that is, the four opinions known as tetrapharmakos.
But it is also useful
to work out with exactitude the lesser problem of how certain externals,
such as beauty, wealth, and marriage, affect our happiness (col. 15.413).
Philodemus clearly exemplifies this view of priorities in his o w n writings. In
the last part of the preserved text (cols. 1 6 - 2 3 ) , he contrasts wrong attitudes
toward death with right attitudes.
Philodemus devoted an entire work in several books to the subject of
death. PHerc. 1050 contains the fourth book of 'On Death', 'Ilepi Gavxou'.53
52
DOMENICO COMPARETTI edited the papyrus in ' F r a m m e n t i inediti dell'etica di Epicuro

tratti da un p a p i r o ercolanese*, Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 7 (1879): pp.
401 421, a n d (with revisions) in 'Frammenti dell'etica di Epicuro tratti da un papiro
ercolanese', M u s e o italiano di antichit classica 1 (1884): p p . 67 88. WOLFGANG SCHMID
edited t h e p a p y r u s in 'Ethica Epicurea, Pap. H e r e . 1251', Leipzig 1939. COMPARETTI
believed t h a t t h e w o r k w a s by Epicurus. USENER (U p. li) argued convincingly that the
a u t h o r was a younger Epicurean. SCHMID w a s n o t persuaded by USENER and remained
uncertain a b o u t t h e a u t h o r (p. 5 of his edition). CRNERT (p. 176) held that the a u t h o r
is Philodemus; PHILIPPSON followed him (col. 2460); and GIGANTE argued in detail that
the work w a s by Philodemus (Filodemo quale a u t o r e dell'Etica C o m p a r e t t i , pp. 245
276 of 'Ricerche Filodemee'). GIGANTE (La Bibliothque de Philodme, p. 64 = IDEM,
Filodemo in Italia, p. 53) suggests that t h e title of t h e w o r k is ' I l e p i aipcrecov tca (piryv',
as a n n o u n c e d by Philodemus at the end of ' I l e p i olicovojiia'. T h e similarities between
the t r e a t m e n t of death at the end of PHerc. 1251 (cols. 1 6 - 2 3 ) and Philodemus' ' O n
D e a t h ' are evidence in f a v o r of Philodemean a u t h o r s h i p .
" TACO KUIPER translated and commented on the p a p y r u s in 'Philodemus over den D o o d ' ,
A m s t e r d a m 1925. KUIPER'S book includes, with a few alterations, the text prepared by
DOMENICO BASSI, in: Herculanensium v o l u m i n u m q u a e supersunt collectio III, vol. 1
(DiXoiinou t e p 9 a v d t o u A, pap. 1050), Milan 1914. GIGANTE edited and interpreted
the beginning (cols. 1 - 9 ) and end (cols. 37 - 39) of t h e book in t w o chapters of 'Ricerche
Filodemee': 'L'inizio del q u a r t o libro 'Della m o r t e ' di Filodemo' (pp. 1 1 5 - 1 6 1 ) and 'La
chiusa del q u a r t o libro 'Della m o r t e ' di Filodemo' (pp. 1 6 3 - 2 3 4 ) . GIGANTE rightly
emphasizes the originality of Philodemus in this w o r k .

Authenticated
2392
ELIZABETH
ASMIS
T h e work seems to be Philodemus' most personal. Written as a c o n s o l a t i o n ,

it is gentle and sympathetic, free o f the abrasiveness o f Lucretius' account.
T h e r e is some complexity in the argument, but much greater complexity in
the sensitivity o f Philodemus' observations. T h e presentation of arguments is
interwoven with poetic images that build up to an emotional c l i m a x . Philodemus considers one reason after another why people might be troubled by
the prospect of death. He has consolation for those who die young (cols. 12
14); and he thinks it "inexcusably silly" to worry about enemies rejoicing at
our death (cols. 20.3 22.9). H e asks those who regret not leaving any children
behind: who could be more caring than the followers left behind by Polyainos,
Metrodorus, Leonteus, and Epicurus, and indeed all who have made progress
in our sect? Even many ordinary people, iSidkcti, have friends who care about
them much more than the descendants o f D a n a o s and his brother, o f C a d m o s ,
and o f Heracles cared about their progenitors (col. 23.2 15). Descendants
matter no more to us than the contemporaries of Phoroneus, before the flood
(cols. 23.37 - 24.5).
Philodemus reserves his greatest sympathy for those who "leave behind
parents, or children, o r a wife, o r others who will suffer misfortune" because
o f their death. T h i s prospect " a l o n e or especially most naturally stings a
person of sense and makes him shed tears" (col. 2 5 . 2 1 0 ) . Philodemus also
has sympathy for those who die on foreign soil; and here we c a n , I believe,
detect an allusion to himself:
"Whenever [there is the expectation o f dying] in a foreign land, [this]
naturally stings lovers of discourse ((piôXoyoiq), especially if they leave
behind parents and other relatives in their native land. But [it stings] only
so much as to prick, so as not to bring pain, a great pain, [to those]
involved in the inconveniences that attend life in a foreign l a n d . " (Cols.
25.37 - 26.7)
Philodemus is a lover o f discourse, (PIôXoyoq, as he indicates in 'rispi O I K O V O Hiaq' and demonstrates throughout his writings. An emigrant from Syria, he
probably left parents and other relatives there; and he has learned to bear the
hardships o f life at R o m e . M a s k i n g his own identity under the general reference
to 'lovers of discourse', he provides a rare glimpse o f his personal aspirations,
together with a little nostalgia. 5 4
We see the personal side o f Philodemus, t o o , in the claim that "it is great
madness" (col. 28.5) to want a heroic death in battle. "I t h i n k " , he says, that
it makes no difference whether a person dies nobly in illness o r whether he
dies nobly fighting the enemy (col. 2 9 . 1 5 - 1 7 ) . Quoting Odysseus' famous
lament (Odyssey 5 . 3 0 6 308), he says that it doesn't matter whether o n e dies
on the battlefield at Troy or in a storm at sea, or, for that matter, while sailing
54
KUIPER (p. 128, n. 54 of 'Philodemus over den Dood') takes ipiXoXoyoi as a general
reference to people who go abroad for the sake of learning; but this general use does
not exclude a personal reference. Study was an important motivation for travel (see cols.
33.23 - 24 and 38.8) that applies personally to Philodemus.

Authenticated
PHILODEMUS'
2393
EPICUREANISM
the seas either in pursuit of learning or to bury one's relatives (col. 3 3 . 9 - 2 5 ) .

T h e reference to the pursuit of learning masks another self-reference. As in
his other works, Philodemus will not glorify war; and he has faith in ordinary
people. Although he cites illustrious examples, he makes clear that the same
values belong to the humble. Some ordinary people, iSirtai, Philodemus points
out, bear the yoke of an unjust condemnation no less courageously than some
famous men (col. 3 5 . 2 5 - 3 4 ) .
In a resounding conclusion, Philodemus places all humans on the same
level: all inhabit a city that is unfortified against death (col. 3 7 . 2 7 - 2 9 ) ; though
a person may be stronger than the Giants, everyone is ephemeral (col. 37.23 25). Like vessels of glass and clay, we will not remain unbroken (col. 39.1 6). Therefore, we should prepare ourselves mentally for death, so that when
the time comes, we will die without panic, knowing that we have enjoyed life
and will no longer have any sensation (col. 39.15 25).
3. 'On Frankness'; ' O n Anger'

In his b o o k ' O n Frankness' f l l e p i 7tappr|<jiaq', ' D e liberiate dicendi'),
Philodemus shows a different aspect of his work as a philosophical author.
Preserved in PHerc. 1471, the treatise is part of an 'Epitome of characters and
lives, from the lectures of Z e n o ' . 5 5 As the title indicates, Philodemus has
summarized the lectures of his teacher Z e n o .
Although 'Ilept Ttapp^caq' has been preserved mostly as a series of
disconnected fragments, the discussion is unified by a medical analogy: just
as illness o f the body is cured by a doctor using the right kind of treatment,
so debility of soul (that is, deficiency of character) is cured by healers using
the appropriate treatment. T h e psychic healer uses frankness as a method of
curing ethical illness. 56 As someone who purifies the patient, he is himself
pure, loves the patient, is better than him, and knows how to heal. 5 7 Frankness
of speech admits of a subtle use, when it is mixed with praise, and a plain
use, a more risky procedure that is to be applied when the more subtle
approach does not work (frs. 10 and 68). Just as a doctor chooses a treatment
by interpreting the signs of an illness, and repeats or changes the treatment
55
T h e subscript o f the papyrus is: <DiXo8f||IOU TCV KOT' jtitonf)v êipyaonvcov Jtspi r|0cov
Ka pfv ie TCDV ZT)VCOVO[<; oxo]Xjv
. . . 6 a x i Jtep napp[ri]criai;. T h e papyrus
was
edited by ALEXANDER OLIVIER in: 'Philodemi r i e p i itappriaiaq libellus', Leipzig 1 9 1 4 .

MARCELLO GIGANTE supplies readings o f fragments n o t included by OLIVIERI, in: M o t i v i
paideutici nell'opera filodemea sulla libert di p a r o l a , C E r c 4 ( 1 9 7 4 ) : pp. 3 7 - 4 2 . GIGANTE
also provides readings o f his o w n in 'Per l'interpretazione dell'opera filodemea Sulla
libert di p a r o l a ' , C E r c 2 ( 1 9 7 2 ) : pp. 5 9 - 6 5 .
56
In ' F i l o d e m o sulla libert di p a r o l a ' , pp. 5 5 - 1 1 3
o f ' R i c e r c h e Filodemee', GIGANTE
argues t h a t 7iappr|aa is a TXVT| ARTOXAATIKII, n o t a virtue (as PHILIPPSON

col. 2 4 7 0 ) .
asserts,
I w o u l d put GIG ANTE'S conclusions s o m e w h a t differently by saying t h a t
psychic healing is a stochastic a r t , which uses 7tappT|CTa as a m e t h o d .

57
Fr. 4 4 , cf. cols. 1 and 2.

Authenticated
2394
ELIZABETH
ASMIS
according as it works, so a skilful healer of the soul adapts his treatment to

the observed signs (frs. 63 65). Like a physician, the psychic healer may fail
when the affection (rcdSoq) is at its height, but be called back when it has
abated (fr. 65). Some patients are unable to bear frankness of speech (fr. 67).
But the psychic healer will imitate those physicians who treat even those
patients for whom there is good reason to believe that they will not recover
(fr. 69). A person may get angry at another's frankness (fr. 70); what he should
do is freely reveal his faults, as Heracleides and Polyainos did to Epicurus (fr.
49). Some patients recognize the benefit, others don't (fr. 49, col. 17).
'Ilepi 7IappTlaa<;, is organized, at least partially, as a series of answers to
problems (Tonoi). 58 Much of the material appears to have been adapted from
sources outside Epicureanism. T h e medical analogy was current in Stoicism;
and many of the problems and answers appear commonplace. Still, there is
considerable subtlety in the use of the medical analogy and in the psychological
analysis. One of the questions treated is (col. 20.1 - 5 ) : Why do people resent
frank speech from those that they recognize as more clever and, indeed, as
leaders (ica0T|YT|Tai) ? T h e answer is, in part, that they admit the leaders'
superiority in theoretical inquiry, but think themselves much superior in the
affairs of life. A connected series of questions is: Why do women resent frank
speech more than men (col. 22)? Why do famous people resent it more than
others (col. 22)? Why are old people more resentful (col. 24)? In all three
cases, part of the answer is that there is greater psychological insecurity.
In appropriating material from outside Epicureanism, Philodemus has
given it a distinctively Epicurean application. He depicts life in an Epicurean
community, as exemplified by the lives of Epicurus and his friends. T h e
members of the community are bound by the following belief:
" T h e basic and most important [principle] is that we will obey Epicurus,
according to whom we have chosen to live" (fr. 45.8 11).
Although Philodemus distinguishes between those who receive treatment (oi
KaxacTKeuaônevoi) and the leaders (Ka0iiyr|iai, KaGiryouiiEvoi) who provide it,
he does not imply a division of the Epicurean community into distinct social
groups. 5 9 Rather, all participate in the effort to improve both oneself and
In fr. 81, the question "whether the wise man will refer his own affairs to his friends
with frankness" is designated as a zonoq; cf. the use of TOJIO<; at col. 14.9.
5 * NORMAN DE WITT derived from the treatise a detailed and highly speculative picture of
the structure of an Epicurean community (Organization and Procedure in Epicurean
groups, Classical Philology 31 [1936]: pp. 2 0 5 - 2 1 1 ) . H e divided the community into
different social levels, with students at the bottom and three grades of teachers: the
<piXoXoyo<; or 'junior' (corresponding to the assistant professor); the <piXoao(po<; (corresponding to associate professor); and the aocpoQ. There is no sign, however, of such a
gradation among teachers (see esp. col. 8). GIGANTE rightly opposes DE WITT'S scheme,
pp. 1 1 0 - 1 1 3 of 'Ricerche Filodemee'. Philodemus uses the term Ka8r|YT|Tr]<; at frs. 4 5 . 5 ,
5 2 . 6 - 7 , 8 0 . 2 - 3 , and cols. 7 . 2 and 2 0 . 3 - 4 ; and KaSriyounevoi; at frs. 3 9 . 2 - 3 , 4 2 . 5 ,
4 6 . 3 - 4 , 70.4, 7 5 . 3 - 4 , 7 6 . 1 - 2 , 85.7, and col. 5 a . 9 - 1 0 . Their students are designated
as oi KdTaaKsuaônEvoi in frs. 2 . 3 , 2 5 . 6 - 7, 55.3 - 4, 7 1 . 2 - 3 , 7 6 . 3 - 4, and col. 1 2 b . 7 .
58

Authenticated
PHILODEMUS'
EPICUREANISM
2395
others. As friends, the Epicureans will be open with one another: "To act in
secret", Philodemus says, "is most unfriendly" (TO TE Xa0paio7tpayeiv d[cp]iX(bxaxov, fr. 41.2 3).60 Even wise persons will admonish one another:
"If they know each other, they will be reminded gladly by one another
... as [they are reminded] by themselves, and will feel the most gentle
sting and will be grateful" (col. 8 . 7 - 1 3 ) .
Even a wise person will naturally feel some pain when admonished; but it is
very slight. Contrary to the Stoic sage, the Epicurean sage is not above
criticism, nor above feeling ever so slight a tinge of displeasure.
Philodemus' work ' O n Anger' ('Ilepi 6pyri<;\ 'De ira'), preserved in
PHerc. 182, seems to belong to the same epitome of Zeno's writings as 'Ilepi
Jtappriaiaq'. 61 It attempts to establish an Epicurean position in a debate that
divided Peripatetics and Stoics. Whereas the Stoics maintained that all emotions, including anger, are unnatural, irrational impulses that should be eradicated entirely, the Peripatetics believed that it is natural to feel emotion and
that there is a mean (p.ecrov), or measure ((ietpov), for all emotions, which is
in accordance with reason (lcata TOV \oyov). According to the Peripatetics,
only excesses of emotion are irrational; the wise person is not without emotion,
drca9f]<;, but moderate in feeling emotions, |iTpiOTia9f|<;. The Epicurean view
is that anger is painful and therefore to be avoided as much as possible. It
cannot be eliminated altogether, however, because it is in the nature of human
beings to feel some anger; this inevitable sort of anger is 'natural', whereas
the rest is 'empty'. Against the Stoics, who held that all anger is unnatural,
the Epicureans believed that there is natural anger. Against the Peripatetics,
60
61
1.57
Their job is to imitate the leaders (col. 5a. 8) so as to become "off-shoots" (dm0xo|ioi)
of them (fr. 45.6). A avaxoXCfov (frs. 75.4 - 5, 79.3) is simply a member of the school,
that is, a fellow Epicurean.
In fr. 28.2 10, Philodemus considers the possibility that the best thing about friendship
is "to have someone to whom one will say what is in one's heart and who will listen
when one speaks". It is not clear whether Philodemus (or Zeno) endorses this view. If
so, he values the intimacy of friendship more than the security that results from it. This
position would seem to put him among those Epicureans who, while recognizing the
utility of friendship, valued it above all for itself (see Cicero, De finibus 1.69 70).
The papyrus was edited by C A R O L U S W I L K E , in: Philodemi de ira liber, Leipzig 1 9 1 4 . It
has been re-edited, with a translation and commentary, by G I O V A N N I INDELLI, in:
Filodemo, L'Ira, Naples 1 9 8 8 . (In citing the columns, I have used I N D E L L I ' S numbering,
which differs slightly from WILKE'S.) The subscript indicates a space in the title just
before [ite]pi pyfji;. Following a suggestion by W A L T E R S C O T T (Fragmenta herculanensia,
p. 74, n. 1 ) , W I L K E (p. vii) supplies [jiepi f|0a>v ... 6 axi Jte]pi 0pyrj<; and proposes that
the work belongs to the same epitome of Zeno's work as 'Ilepi 7tappt|aiac;\ As W I L K E
notes, Philodemus' reference to his 'Ilepi 7tappT|aia<;' at col. 3 6 . 2 4 - 2 5 is excellent
evidence in support of this suggestion. C R N E R T (p. 9 1 ) says that there is no doubt that
the work is based on Zeno's lectures.
A N R W II 36.4

Authenticated
2396
ELIZABETH ASMIS
w h o held t h a t a n g e r should be m o d e r a t e d by reason, the E p i c u r e a n s held t h a t

a n g e r should be eliminated as m u c h as possible by r e a s o n . 6 2
' n e p i pyfj' is divided r o u g h l y into t w o parts. First, P h i l o d e m u s e n u m e r ates in vivid detail the evil c o n s e q u e n c e s o f anger (cols. 1 - 3 0 ) . H e c o n t e n d s
a g a i n s t an o p p o n e n t , w h o s e e m s t o be T i m a s a g o r a s (as cited at col. 7 . 7 ) , t h a t
it is n o t e m p t y c h a t t e r t o d e p i c t all these consequences (col. 1). As in the c a s e
o f e r o t i c desire (pomicf) niGuîa, col. 7 . 1 9 - 2 0 ) ,
a p e r s o n m u s t learn
a p p r e c i a t e the purity o f the evil by studying it in detail. Using t o
to
good
effect the m e d i c a l a n a l o g y t h a t o c c u r s so prominently in 'Ilspi itappr|aia\

P h i l o d e m u s a r g u e s (cols. 4 a n d 5 ) : just as sick persons are negligent a b o u t
getting rid o f their disease b e c a u s e they either are wholly u n a w a r e of the
c o n s e q u e n c e s o r think o f their condition as ' m o d e r a t e ' (nexpiwv, col. 4 . 1 4 ) ,
but b e c o m e intent on a c u r e w h e n the consequences a r e put before their eyes,
so p e r s o n s suffering f r o m a n g e r are unwilling t o submit t o a c u r e b e c a u s e
they d o n o t r e c o g n i z e their c o n d i t i o n at all o r n o t clearly, but b e c o m e intent
on a c u r e w h e n t h e evil c o n s e q u e n c e s have been put before t h e m . P h i l o d e m u s
applies this situation t o his o p p o n e n t (col. 5 . 1 7 - 2 5 ) : he w a s unclear a b o u t
the d i s a s t r o u s c o n s e q u e n c e s o f his anger against the E p i c u r e a n s Basileides a n d
T h e s p i s , even t h o u g h he believed he had put limits (npaxa, col. 5 . 2 3 ) o n his
bitterness. T h i s a c c u s a t i o n identifies Philodemus' o p p o n e n t as a Peripatetic
a b o u t the t i m e o f Basileides, h e a d o f the E p i c u r e a n s c h o o l prior t o A p o l l o d o r u s
62
Aristotle sets out the doctrine of the mean (nearr|) in anger at 'Nicomachean Ethics'
book 4, chapter 5. Aristotle notes that anger is thought to be required for self-defence
(1126a6 7). This view was used by later Peripatetics as an argument on behalf of
anger. Diogenes Laertius (5.31) sums up Aristotle's position as: the wise man must be
|iexpi07ta8fj, not naGfi (cf. M . SOLLENBERGER, The Lives of the Peripatetics: An Analysis
of the Contents and Structure of Diogenes Laertius' Vitae philosophorum Book 5, ANRW
II 36,5, ed. by W. HAASE [1991, forthcoming]). In 'Tusculan Disputations' ( 3 . 7 1 - 7 4 , cf.
3.22), Cicero writes that, according to the Peripatetics, the emotions are natural and, as
such, cannot be resisted, but must be tempered. In agreement with the Stoics, Cicero
objects that these alleged tempered emotions, mediocritates
(3.74), are contrary to right
opinion and unnatural. Seneca (Epistle 8 5 . 3 - 9 ) likewise attacks the Peripatetic position
that it is natural to feel emotion and that it belongs to the wise person not to be
conquered by emotions, but to feel them in moderation (modice, 85.3), that is, as a
mean (mediocritas, 85.9). In his long work 'On anger', 'De ira', Seneca argues in detail
for the Stoic position that anger is a voluntary, unnatural affliction (see esp. 1.6, 2.2.1);
but he admits that "nature makes some persons prone to anger" (2.20.1). (Cf. J. FILLIONLAHILLE, La production littraire de Snque sous les rgnes de Caligula et de Claude,
sens philosophique et porte politique: les 'Consolationes' et le 'De ira', ANRW II 36,3,
ed. W. HAASE, B e r l i n - N e w York 1989, pp. 1 6 0 6 - 1 6 3 8 , esp. 1 6 1 6 - 1 6 3 8 . ) In the fifth
book of 'On Poems' (col. 1 3 . 3 0 - 3 3 ) , Philodemus agrees with his Stoic opponent that
"living with moderate emotions (xo nexpiOTtaBcii fjv) is useless". All the Stoics associated
anger with false belief; but whereas Zeno held that anger (and the emotions in general)
follows upon false belief, Chrysippus identified anger (and all other emotions) with false
belief (SVF 1.209, 3.461). Lucretius sums up the Epicurean view on the emotions of
anger, fear, and lethargy in the verses: illud in his rebus video firmare potesse, / usque
adeo naturarum vestigia linqui / parvula quae nequeat ratio depellere nobis, / ut nil
impediat dignam dis degere vitam (3.319-322).

Authenticated
PHILODEMUS'
EPICUREANISM
2397
in the second century B. C. As a Peripatetic, the opponent thinks he has

put a limit on his anger, or, in other words, believes that his condition is
moderate'. 6 3
In his enumeration of evils, Philodemus includes many examples from
history and poetry. He notes that Alexander the Great wasn't roused to anger
by any beast except a lion, but the gods of the poets just about get angry
even at sows (col. 1 8 . 2 8 - 3 4 ) . Appropriately, he discusses how anger stands
in the way of philosophy (col. 1 9 . 1 2 - 3 3 ) : anger makes people unable to
progress because they won't put up with the admonition of either leaders
(KariyriTai) or fellow students (ovaxoXa&VTeq), and because they do not
"share in the good of joint inquiry" ([i]o0 8ia au^T|tr|ae(<; |iexexiv ayaoO).
Philodemus indicates that a philosophical community has two aims: reform
of character (as discussed in 'Ilepi Jtappt|<ria<;') and theoretical inquiry.
In the second part of 'Ilepi pyfjq' (col. 3 1 - e n d , col. 50), Philodemus
first presents the Peripatetic position (cols. 31 32), then defends the Epicurean
position at length. T h e Peripatetics claimed that those who eliminate anger
cut out the "sinews and nerves" (veupa, col. 31.28) of the soul; for without
anger there is no "punishment or defence" (col. 3 1 . 3 1 3 2 ) . Philodemus replies:
there is no need to dwell on the fact that soldiers may disobey their general,
and that sinews and nerves can go awry (col. 33.22 34). T h e s e are obvious,
commonplace objections, made by the Stoics and others. 6 4 T h e Epicureans'
own response, he writes, is not simple, but consists of a distinction:
"Because the word [that it, 'anger'] admits o f a mistaken interpretation,
we do not make a simple answer. Instead, making a distinction, we
declare, on the one hand, that the affection (jcdflo*;) itself is an evil, since
it is painful or analogous to what is painful; but we think, on the other
hand, that insofar as it is associated with a disposition it will also be
called a good. For it results from seeing how is the nature of things and
from not having wrong opinions in the measurements o f losses and in
punishments o f those who harm us. Therefore, just as we called empty
63
T h e use of 'nsxpito?' at col. 1.20 may also be an allusion to the Peripatetic doctrine of
nexpiax; jtaSeiv. Philodemus admits that if his opponent's reproaches were directed
against authors, such as Bion and Chrysippus, who did nothing but blame, his position
would be "measured" (KV |ITpicD<; iaxaxo); but, as it is, he is ridiculous. Possibly, the
opponent's anger against Basileides and Thespis consists of these unreasonable reproaches. Philodemus agrees with the Stoics that it is important to picture all the ugliness
and all the dangers belonging to anger (see Seneca, De ira 2.35.1). WILKE (p. xxiii of his
edition) identifies Timasagoras, whom he takes to be the opponent attacked throughout
col. 1 to col. 7, as a Peripatetic. CRNERT (pp. 89 91) previously argued that Timasagoras is a Peripatetic, but proposed that Philodemus' opponent in cols. 1 and 5 could be
either Timasagoras or Nicasicrates (whom CRNERT likewise identified as a Peripatetic).
PHILIPPSON holds that Philodemus' opponent in cols. 1 7 is probably Timasagoras,
but identifies him as an Epicurean (p. 438 of 'Phiiodems Buch ber den Zorn. Ein Beitrag
zu seiner Wiederherstellung und Auslegung', Rheinisches Museum 71 [1916]: pp. 425 460).
64
Seneca responds to the Peripatetic comparison o f anger to soldiers in D e ira 1.9.2.
157

Authenticated
2398
ELIZABETH
ASMIS
anger an evil because it conies to be from a wholly evil disposition and

draws along with it countless difficulties ... [and just as when it comes
to be] from a good disposition, [we do] not [call it] evil but good, so we
will call the failure to admit natural anger an evil (for 'whoever does not
get angry when he is insulted' and harmed 'attests the greatest wickedness', according to Menander ...), and the admittance of natural anger a
g o o d . " (Cols. 3 7 . 2 0 - 3 8 . 3 4 )
Anger that attends a good disposition is both good and bad: it is bad in itself,
since it is inherently painful; and it is good insofar as it attends a correct view
of nature in general and personal losses and fitting punishments in particular.
Against the Stoics, Philodemus maintains that anger is not always associated
with false beliefs, but may result from true beliefs. If it attends the disposition
of someone with correct beliefs, it is good in relation to the disposition,
though bad in itself. A person naturally feels anger when insulted or harmed;
and it is good to admit this natural anger, and bad not to admit it.
Against this Epicurean position, a certain Nicasicrates argued that
"natural anger is not only painful in its own nature, but also overshadows
one's calculations as much as lies in its p o w e r " (col. 38.35 40).
This critic is attempting to subvert the Epicurean distinction by showing that,
instead of attending rational insight, 'natural anger' overwhelms it and blots
it out. Nicasicrates has been variously identified as an Epicurean, a Peripatetic,
or a Stoic. 6 5 H e is unlikely to be either an Epicurean or a Peripatetic, since
he alleges that even 'natural' anger diminishes rationality. He may be a Stoic;
more likely, he is an Academic. Whereas the Stoics did not recognize 'natural
anger' at all, the Academics made a practice of subverting their opponents by
accepting some of their positions as premises. 6 6
In the rest of 'Flepi d p Y ^ ' , Philodemus responds to all sorts of objections,
both actual and hypothetical. T h e evident subtlety of the discussion supports
the view that Philodemus is drawing on Zeno. When a wise person is harmed
deliberately or expects to be harmed, Philodemus claims, he feels anger as
something alien (dXXotpiov), or inappropriate to himself, that is, as something
65
WILKE (pp. x x i - x x v i ) , following CRONERT (pp. 90 - 94), identifies Nicasicrates as a

Peripatetic. Following ZELLER, PHILIPPSON identifies him as an Epicurean (pp. 647 648 of his review of WILKE'S edition, Philologische Wochenschrift 35 [1915], pp. 6 4 5 6 5 2 ) . FRANCESCA L O N G O AURICCHIO a n d A D E L E TEPEDINO G U E R R A l i k e w i s e t a k e b o t h
T i m a s a g o r a s and Nicasicrates as Epicureans (Aspetti e Problemi della dissidenza epicurea,

CErc 11 [1981]: pp. 25 - 40, esp. 2 9 - 3 8 ) . INDELLI agrees with them (pp. 1 5 3 - 1 5 5 and
223 - 224 of his edition). As CRONERT (pp. 91 - 9 2 ) points out, Nicasicrates is mentioned
in PHerc. 1457 ('On Flattery'), col. 10, as " a b u s i n g Democritus extremely", and in
PHerc. 157 ('On the way of life of the G o d s ' , book 3), fr. 65, in connection with the
view that everlasting things do not have a beginning. We know from Aristotle (Physics
252a32 - 2 5 2 b l and Generation of Animals 7 4 2 b l 7 - 2 3 ) that Democritus held this view.
66
T h e Academic Carneades, in particular, criticised the Epicureans in this way (Cicero,

De fato 23 25). A large part of the criticism in Cicero, De finibus 2, and De natura
deorum 1 probably also goes back to Carneades.

Authenticated
PHILODEMUS'
EPICUREANISM
2399
painful. At the same time, his motivation for inflicting punishment is not
revenge, but the belief that the punishment will check the offender as well as
others (cols. 40.32 - 41.12). 6 7 In response to this position, Philodemus considers
the objection: if a wise person gets angry because he is harmed deliberately,
and if this harm is extremely great, will he not have great anger and a strong
desire for punishment? T h e reply is: the wise person will be extremely alienated
with respect to the other person and will hate him extremely, but will not be
greatly disturbed, just as he is not greatly disturbed by the presence of
great pains (cols. 4 1 . 3 1 - 4 2 . 1 3 ) . Certainly, the wise person will not desire
punishment as something enjoyable; for this is the attitude of a cruel person,
and, as the wise person knows, a cruel person exacts the worst kind of
punishment from himself (col. 4 2 . 2 1 - 3 9 ) .
Some critics attempted to subvert the Epicurean view of anger by appealing to Epicurus' 'Authoritative Opinion' ('Kupia 8oâ') 1. Here Epicurus claims
that god is not subject to anger or favoritism on the ground that these attitudes
belong to a ' w e a k ' nature. In response to the objection that the Epicureans
make the strongest person weak by assigning anger to him, Philodemus says
that one must distinguish between kinds of strengths and weaknesses: all
human beings are subject to the weakness of anger and favoritism, but this
type o f weakness does not take away from political or physical strength
(43.14 41). T h e same 'Opinion' prompts the objection: just as a wise person
favors deliberate benefactors, in the same way he gets angry at those who
deliberately harm him. It follows that favor and anger are natural in the same
way (col. 46.18 40). Therefore, just as a wise person naturally bestows favors
more intently if the benefits are great, so a wise person naturally gets angry
more intently if the harm is great (col. 48.5 - 1 4 ) . In response to this objection,
Philodemus points out that externals, whether benefits or injuries, do not
matter greatly (col. 48.18 24). Therefore (the reader may infer), the wise
person naturally gets angry only a little (cf. col. 4 7 . 3 7 - 4 1 ) , just as he naturally
is not greatly thankful for external benefits.
As elsewhere, Philodemus (following Zeno) takes pains to show that his
view is in agreement with that of Epicurus and the rest of the Epicurean
leaders (ica0T|Yen6aiv, col. 45.1). Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Hermarchus, he
claims, all permitted 9ono<;, 'spirit', 'anger', only in the ordinary sense in
which it is a short-lived, non-intense kind o f anger (cols. 4 4 . 4 1 - 4 5 . 3 7 ) . 6 8 He
sarcastically wonders how his opponents, who claim to know books, could
go so far wrong (col. 4 5 . 1 5 - 2 2 ) .
67
Philodemus dismisses the alternative that it is " a p p r o p r i a t e " to one, oiiceiov (col. 4 0 . 3 9
40), as " c r a z y " . As a third possibility, he considers whether the emotion may be
"indifferent", d8id(popov, " a s though someone were looking upon h i m " (col. 4 0 . 3 5
38), that is, as though he were someone looking upon himself as an outsider; and he
rejects this possibility as " f o r c e d " (Piaiov, col. 4 1 . 2 ) .
68
GIOVANNI INDELLI discusses the meaning of 9U|I6<;, as well as other terms signifying
anger, in: II lessico filodemeo nell'opera 'Sull'ira', C E r c 12 (1982): pp. 8 5 - 8 9 .

Authenticated
2400
ELIZABETH
ASMIS
VI. Writings on Rhetoric, Music, and Poetry: 'On Rhetoric'; On

'On Poems'; 'On the Good King according to Homer'
Music';
Philodemus' work 'On Rhetoric' (Tlepi >T|TopiKii<;\ 'Rhetorical, in about

seven books, is preserved in numerous papyri. 69 In this work, Philodemus
joins in a debate that had been pursued since Plato and was renewed with
particular vigor in the second century B. C.: Is rhetoric an art (xxvr|)? In the
course of the discussion, Philodemus gives a comprehensive analysis of rhetoric, including a detailed analysis of prose style. 70
Following his teacher Zeno, Philodemus argues that whereas political
and legal rhetoric is not an art, sophistic rhetoric is an art. In book 2, using
the same general format as in 'Ilepi OKOVOHCN;', he first reviews the opinions
of others, then prefaces his own discussion with a definition of the subject
matter. After listing numerous arguments for and against the view that rhetoric
is an art, Philodemus sets out three main Epicurean positions. First, some
Epicureans define rhetoric as the "art of writing discourses and making display
speeches" (TOO ... ypcpeiv Xyou<; icai 7tiSeên; jtoieaOai ixvr|v, PHerc. 1674,
col. 2 1 . 1 9 - 2 1 , p. 87 AURICCHIO), and claim that there is no art of speaking
in a court of law or before the people. Second, some say (without making
any distinctions) that rhetoric is an art, but also requires natural talent and
experience (col. 23.14 20, p. 93). Third, some distinguish between two kinds
69
SIEGFRIED SUDHAUS edited the papyri in 'Philodemi Volumina R h e t o r i c a ' , 2 vols, and a
supplement, Leipzig 1 8 9 2 - 9 6 . T h e supplement is a revised edition of b o o k s 1 and 2 of
' O n R h e t o r i c ' in the form o f a c o n t i n u o u s text. SUDHAUS distinguished between (a) a
preliminary w o r k o n rhetoric in o n e b o o k entitled T l e p i f>T|TopiKfj<; nonvriâTiKv' and
preserved in P H e r c . 1506 and 1 4 2 6 , and (b) seven b o o k s entitled T k p i f>r|Topiicii<;'; see
PHILIPPSON, col. 2 4 5 3 - 2 4 5 4 . T h i s distinction is based partly on the fact that PHerc.
1506 is entitled T l g p i ^ x o p i K r j ^ TtonvTmcmKv', whereas other papyri are entitled
T l e p i F>R|TOPIKFJ(;' (some with b o o k n u m b e r s ) . However, since P H e r c . 1426, which
overlaps with P H e r c . 1 5 0 6 , is entitled T l e p i f>T|T0piKf(;, simply, SUDHAUS' distinction is
doubtful.
HARRY
M.
HUBBELL translated
and
commented
on
SUDHAUS'
text,
in:
The
R h e t o r i c a o f Philodemus, T r a n s a c t i o n s o f the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences

23 (1920): pp. 2 4 3 - 3 8 2 . B o o k s 1 and 2 o f ' O n R h e t o r i c ' have been re-edited by
FRANCESCA LONGO AURICCHIO, in: R i c e r c h e dei Papiri Ercolanesi, v. 3 (OiXoSrinou itepi
^ntopiicifc libri primus et secundus), ed. by FRANCESCO SBORDONE, N a p l e s 1977. MATILDE FERRARIO has re-edited fragments belonging t o b o o k 5 , in: 'Verso una nuova
edizione del q u i n t o libro della ' R e t o r i c a ' di F i l o d e m o ' , C E r c 4 (1974): pp. 9 3 - 9 6 ; and
' F r a m m e n t i del V libro della ' R e t o r i c a ' di Filodemo (PHerc. 1669)', C E r c 10 (1980): pp.
5 5 - 1 2 4 . MARIA G . CAPPELLUZZO e x a m i n e s fragments that SUDHAUS assigned conjecturally t o the third b o o k , in: Per una nuova edizione di un libro della R e t o r i c a filodemea
(PHerc. 1 0 0 4 ) , C E r c 6 (1976): pp. 6 9 - 7 6 .
70
Philodemus dedicated at least part of ' O n R h e t o r i c ' to a ' y o u t h ' G a i u s (Tai's Ttai,
SUDHAUS, v. 1, col. 4 2 a . 5 , p. 2 2 3 ) , w h o , according to PHILIPPSON (col. 2 4 4 5 ) , is perhaps
C. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, a relative of Philodemus' friend Piso. T h e appellation 'itai'
looks like a c o n c e i t inspired by S o c r a t e s ' reference to Phaedrus in P l a t o ' s dialogue
'Phaedrus'.

Authenticated
PHILODEMUS'
EPICUREANISM
2401
of art: (a) methodical art, having fixed principles; and (b) conjectural ('stochastic') art, based on an observation of what usually happens. According to these
Epicureans, rhetoric belongs to (b), the conjectural kind of art (col. 26.3 16,
p. 99). Philodemus criticizes all three positions, but disapproves most strongly
of the second position: these Epicureans, he says, "have fallen away completely
from the truth and the judgment of our leaders" (col. 23.20 24, p. 93).
As a prerequisite of developing the correct position, Philodemus first sets
out the meaning, or preconception (Tipo^riyiq), of 'art', texvtj. In ordinary
usage, he claims, a tE^vri is a "condition or disposition resulting from the
observation of certain common, elementary principles", achieving its aim in
a fixed, non-conjectural way (col. 38.2 15, p. 123). Philodemus accepts only
this ordinary meaning as the proper meaning of 'TEXVT|'; the notion of a
'conjectural' art, he claims, is a derived usage. H e also says that he leaves
aside (for the time being) whether an art produces something useful or not
(col. 38.1518, p. 123). This omission is significant. Whereas the Stoics
included the utility of a texvri in its definition, Philodemus does not require
that an art be useful. Equipped with his definition, Philodemus goes on to
argue, with the help of excerpts gathered by Zeno, that Epicurus and the
other leaders of Epicureanism were agreed that whereas the deliberative and
forensic branches of rhetoric are not an art, sophistic (that is, epideictic)
r h e t o r i c is a n a r t ( c o l s . 4 3 . 2 6 - 5 2 . 1 0 , p p .
133-151).
It turns out that Philodemus is most hostile to yet another group of

Epicureans, certain contemporaries teaching in Rhodes and Cos. According
to them, the leaders of Epicureanism showed unambiguously in their books
that no part of rhetoric is an art (col. 52.11 col. 58, pp. 151 163). Philodemus
alludes to these opponents in book 1:
"If, as I will report in what follows, Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Hermarchus declare this kind [that is, sophistic rhetoric] an art, those who
write against them are not very far from being convicted of parricide"
( P H e r c . 1427, col. 7 . 1 8 - 2 9 , p. 2 1 AURICCHIO).
It is clear from the controversies among the Epicureans that there was some
ambivalence in the books of Epicurus and his friends. Philodemus' excerpts
suggest that the Epicurean leaders attacked rhetoric in general and did not
single out epideictic or sophistic rhetoric as an art. Z e n o and his school, on
the other hand, wished to claim a place for sophistic rhetoric as a methodical
discipline, with fixed general principles. Sophistic rhetoric, they maintained,
is an art, "having method, though not much", just like poetry (PHerc. 1672,
col. 2 2 . 3 6 - 3 9 , p. 219). Sophistic rhetoric and poetry are both arts, even
though only some aspects are governed by method.
Although they saved sophistic rhetoric as an art, Z e n o and his school
condemned the traditional practice of sophistic rhetoric. Philodemus' disclaimer about the utility of an art allows him to hold both positions. Sophistic
art can be useful, but it has traditionally been useless or worse. In 'On
Rhetoric' as in his other writings, Philodemus denounces sophistic rhetoric as
Authenticated
2402
ELIZABETH
ASMIS
a lying and pernicious discipline. 7 1 Sophists, he says, do not know the right
way to praise or blame. Referring to his own book ' O n Praise', Philodemus
implies that only philosophers can have this kind of knowledge. 7 2 He seems
to approve of arguments showing that rhetoric is " n o t useful with respect to
any of the things that pertain to a blessed life". 7 3 If Peitho is rightly thought
a goddess, he writes, this is due to philosophy; unlike rhetorical persuasion,
philosophical persuasion does not harm. 7 4 In short, philosophy is responsible
for "everything that contributes to a happy life". 7 5
In poetry as well as in prose composition, Philodemus envisages writing
that is made useful, or rendered harmless at least, by the guidance of philosophy. Philosophy judges the utility of the content; the arts of prose and poetry
select and shape the content according to criteria of their own. Following
Zeno, Philodemus assigns an important, though secondary, function to nonphilosophical discourse, whether prose or poetry: the arts of sophistic rhetoric
and poetry have aims of their own, distinct from philosophy, but they may
incidentally promote the goals of philosophy.
In his work ' O n Music' (Tlspi noucnicfiq', ' D e musica'), in at least four
books, Philodemus makes a sustained attack on the view that music influences
character and therefore has educational utility. 76 T h i s view was very influential
in Greek philosophy from the time of D a m o n . Plato, Aristotle, Heraclides,
Aristoxenus, Dicaearchus, Theophrastus, and the Stoics, especially Cleanthes
and Diogenes of Babylon, all endorsed the general theory and contributed to
it. Philodemus attacks all these individuals, with special attention to Diogenes
of Babylon.
Philodemus' main contention is that music, consisting of melody and
rhythm, has no effect on character formation; instead, thoughts influence
character. Music acts only on the sense of hearing, causing either a pleasant
or an unpleasant sensation. It is irrational, ataryoq, and so cannot act on the
rational soul, which alone can achieve virtue. Music does not imitate the
virtues, contrary to what some people 'dream'; nor does it display character
71
SUDHAUS, v. 1, pp. 2 1 6 - 2 2 4 ; v. 2, pp. 2 5 6 - 2 6 3 .
72
S U D H A U S , V. 1 , c o l . 3 8 A . 2 4 - 2 5 , p . 2 1 9 .
73
S U D H A U S , V. 1 , c o l . 3 7 . 2 9 - 3 4 , p . 2 5 0 .
74
S U D H A U S , V. 1 . c o l . 3 2 . 2 - 1 0 ,
75
S U D H A U S , V. 1 , c o l . 3 2 . 3 2 - 3 7 , p . 2 7 0 .
76
A m o n g the numerous papyri belonging to T l e p i liouaiidi;', the most substantial is

P H e r c . 1 4 9 7 , belonging t o book 4 . IOANNES KEMKE edited the remains in 'Philodemi de
musica librorum quae e x s t a n t ' , Leipzig 1884. Subsequently, DIRK ANDREE VAN KREVELEN
edited and translated the text in: Philodemus, De Muziek, Hilversum 1 9 3 9 . ANNEMARIE
J. NEUBECKER analysed the w o r k in 'Die Bewertung der Musik bei Stoikern und
Epikureern. Eine Analyse von Philodems Schrift De M u s i c a ' , Berlin 1956. NEUBECKER
has recently prepared an edition and translation of the fourth book: Philodemus Ober
die Musik IV. Buch, Naples 1986. GIOIA M . RISPOLI re-edited the first book in 'U p r i m o
libro del nspi nouaiKfji; di F i l o d e m o ' , pp. 2 3 - 2 8 6 of ' R i c e r c h e sui papiri ercolanesi',
edited by F. SBORDONE, vol. 1, N a p l e s 1969. RISPOLI'S edition includes an appendix (pp.
2 5 3 - 2 8 6 ) on all the papyri of T l g p i noixnidj;'.
p. 2 6 9 .

Authenticated
2403
in some other way, any more than c o o k e r y does. 7 7 M u s i c can have educational
value only when it is joined with poetry; and, in that case, what acts on
character is not the music as such, but the thoughts expressed by the words
of the poem. Even then, the educational value would be greater if the thoughts
were expressed in prose. If Pindar and Stesichorus managed to persuade the
citizens not to engage in civil strife, they did so
" b y words fashioned poetically and not by melodies, and they would
have succeeded more if they had tried to turn them away by p r o s e " . 7 8
In 'riepi nouaiKfjif, Philodemus shows a detailed acquaintance not only
with the philosophers he criticizes, but also with Greek poetry. H e reviews
the types of songs enjoyed by the G r e e k s (book 4, cols. 4 . 2 7.22): hymns to the
gods, marriage songs, love songs, dirges, w a r songs, athletic songs, dramatic
choruses, and others. If there is any utility in marriage songs, he claims, it
comes from the poems, not the music; and then it is small (col. 5 . 2 5 47).
Similarly, the poems, not the music, of love songs have an effect on love; and
then, instead o f helping, they mostly inflame the passion (col. 6.3 8). Ibycos,
A n a c r e o n , and the like, corrupted the youth n o t with their melodies, but with
the thoughts expressed in their love songs (col. 14.8 - 1 3 ) .
Still, Philodemus agrees with H o m e r that music is appropriate at parties.
Parties, after all, are a time to relax and have fun (col. 1 6 . 1 7 - 2 3 ) . M u s i c "is
useful for pleasure" (col. 1 8 . 5 - 7 ) , though n o t for virtue. Nonetheless, w h a t
truly relaxes and cheers the soul is not the rhythms and melodies o f music,
but the thoughts interwoven with it (col. 18.16 19). In denying educational
value to music, Philodemus does not strip it o f value. H e appreciates music
because it delights the hearing and, when joined with the right words, helps
to relax the soul.
In his w o r k ' O n P o e m s ' f l l e p i noiT]|ix(v', "De p o e m a t i s ' ) , in at least five
b o o k s , Philodemus attempts to answer the question: w h a t makes a poem
g o o d ? 7 9 As in the case o f music, he aims to ascertain the proper place o f
77
Book 4, col. 3.23 - 35; see also book 3, fr. 27, pp. 3 2 - 3 3 KEMKE.
78
Book 4, col. 2 0 . 1 1 - 1 6 .
79
There are some 17 papyri belonging to 'On Poems'. FRANCESCO SBORDONE provides a
survey of the papyri in 'Per un'edizione del lspi Toirmtcov di Filodemo', pp. 7 - 27 of
'Sui Papiri della Potica di Filodemo', Naples 1983; and in 'Sui papiri della Potica di
Filodemo', pp. 29 43 of the same volume. NATHANIEL GREENBERG discusses the history
and interpretation of the papyri in his dissertation, 'The Poetic Theory of Philodemus',
Harvard University, 1955. Book 5, which is preserved in PHerc. 1425 and 1538, was
edited and translated, with supplementary essays, by CHRISTIAN JENSEN, in: Philodemus
Uber die Gedichte, Fiinftes Buch, Berlin 1923. Papyri apparently belonging to book 2
were edited by AUGUSTUS HAUSRATH in: Philodemi riepi rioiTinTCOv libri secundi quae
videntur fragmenta, Leipzig 1889. PHerc. 1676 was edited and translated by JOSEF
HEIDMANN: Der Papyrus 1676 der Herculanensischen Bibliothek (Philodemus Ilepi IloitiHxcov), Text und Ubersetzung, Bonn 1937; reprinted in CErc 1 (1971): pp. 9 0 - 1 1 1 .
PHerc. 1676 together with parts of PHerc. 1074 and 1081 was edited and translated as
'tractatus tertius' by F. SBORDONE, ed. and tr-, in: Ricerche sui papiri ercolanesi, vol. 2,
Authenticated
2404
ELIZABETH
ASMIS
poetry in education and in the use o f leisure. Philodemus argues that what
makes a poem good is not the sound neither the rhythm nor the collocation
of vowels and consonants but the combination of thought and words.
From the time of Plato, it was a commonplace topic of debate among
philosophers and literary critics whether poems should provide pleasure, or
instruct, or do both. Following Z e n o , Philodemus claims that poems as
such, that is, as metrical verbal compositions, do not have any educational
usefulness. 80 Any educational utility resides in their content, which poems
share with prose.
Philodemus attacks numerous literary theorists in the course of his discussion. His favorite target throughout ' O n Poems' are the so-called 'critics' literary scholars who believed that what makes a poem good is the verbal
composition (CWVGECTK;) or the euphony that attends it, not the thought. 8 1 He
attacks Aristotle in book 4. 8 2 Book 5 is the best available source of information
about Hellenistic theories of poetry. In this book, Philodemus attacks in
sequence: Plato's student Heraclides; Neoptolemus, who, according to the
scholiast Porphyrion, furnished H o r a c e with his main precepts; a Stoic whose
identity is unclear but who may be Ariston of Chios; and Crates of Pergamum,
a literary scholar o f the second century B. C. T h e book ends with a critical
survey of the major theories of poetry, as compiled by Zeno.
Heraclides, Neoptolemus, and the Stoic all combined a requirement for
utility with a requirement for aesthetic enjoyment, though in very different
ways. Heraclides proposed a basic stylistic requirement for both vividness (TO
vapycbq) and conciseness (TO <JUVTO^<;). As optional qualities, he added
richness (TO noXvzeXibc,) and weightiness (TO uPpiOcoi;). T h i s distinction between
necessary and optional qualities seems to be the basis of a threefold division
of styles into plain, intermediate, and grand. 8 3 It is not at all clear from
Philodemus' discussion how much Neoptolemus influenced Horace. But Neo-
80
81
82
81
Naples 1976. PHerc 460 and 1073, also edited by SBORDONE, make up 'tractatus
alter
of the same volume. PHerc. 994, edited by SBORDONE, is 'tractatus primus' of the same
volume. SBORDONE also edited the fourth book (PHerc. 207), in: Ricerche sui papiri
ercolanesi, vol.1, Naples 1969. The remaining parts of PHerc. 1074 and 1081 have been
edited and translated as 'trattato D ' by MARIA LUISA NARDELLI, in: Ricerche sui papiri
ercolanesi (edited by SBORDONE), vol. 4, Naples 1983. PHerc. 466 was edited and
translated by NARDELLI as 'trattato E' in the same volume.
Book 5, col. 2 9 . 1 7 - 1 9 .
PHerc. 1676 especially deals with the critics; Philodemus summarizes their position at
col. 6 . 1 - 1 1 of this papyrus. See HEINZ GOMOLL, Herakleodorus und die KpittKoi bei
Philodem, Philologus 91 (1936): pp. 3 7 3 - 3 8 4 ; and DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD, Oi icpmicoi
in Philodemus, Mnemosyne, ser. IV, 21 (1968): pp. 1 7 6 - 2 1 4 .
SBORDONE suggests that Philodemus based his attack on a reading of Aristotle's 'On
Poets' and 'Poetics', in: II primo libro di Aristotele 'Intorno ai Poeti', pp. 6 3 - 7 6 of
'Sui Papiri della Poetica di Filodema'. C. O. BRINK rightly doubts this hypothesis, in:
Philodemus, Flspi noir|ndT(ov, Book IV, Maia 24 (1972): pp. 3 4 2 - 3 4 4 .
Book 5, cols. 3 - 5 . See CHRISTIAN JENSEN, Herakleides vom Pontos bei Philodem und
Horaz, Sitzungsberichte, Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, Philos.-hist. Klasse, 1936,
pp. 2 9 2 - 3 2 0 ;
see esp. pp. 3 0 4 -
305.

Authenticated
PHILODEMUS'
EPICUREANISM
2405
ptolemus proposed an intriguing division of the poetic art into three kinds:
ability of the poet; "poetry" (rtoiT|ai<;), consisting of the " t h e m e " (u7t69eai<;);
and " p o e m " (itoirina), consisting of "verbal composition" (auvOemq). 84 A
rhetorical partition of this sort appears in a later Academic theory of rhetoric,
and both partitions may have originated in the Academic school. 8 5 Although
the Stoic did not consider a poem good unless its content was perfectly sound
ethically, he was willing to issue a pardon to Homer, who failed this test. 8 6
In common with other Stoics and in opposition to Plato, he restored Homer
to a position of moral authority (even though qualified) among the Greeks.
Crates demanded only the pleasure of euphony from a poem. 8 7
In his final survey of poetic theories (book 5, cols. 26.19 36.14), Philodemus rejects a wide range of views: theories that demand various qualities
of style alone; theories that attempt to combine the requirements of utility
and style; the theory, newly formulated in the Hellenistic period, that good
poetry consists in the imitation of the ancients, and others. In the light of this
comprehensive rejection, one may well ask: where does the Epicurean view of
poetry, and Philodemus' poetry in particular, fit in? T h e answer seems to be
along the following lines. T h e sound of poems provides pleasure to the
hearing; but for the most part the appeal of a poem, lying in the combination
of content and form, is to the mind. It is not the function of a poem as such
to educate. It remains, therefore, that its function is to provide pleasure, partly
to the sense of hearing, but mostly to the mind. 8 8 T h i s criterion would provide
a justification for Philodemus' own poetry, as well as for selected traditional
poetry.
Philodemus appears to be much more hospitable to poetry than was
Epicurus. Epicurus is said to have denounced poetry in general, and Homeric
poetry in particular, as a destructive web of lies, and to have expelled Homer
from cities, just like Plato. 8 9 According to Diogenes Laertius (10.121), Epicurus
also said that, although the wise man alone can speak correctly about music
and poery, he will not actually compose poems. It is likely that Philodemus,
following Z e n o , argued that his position was compatible with that of Epicurus,
because the poetry denounced by Epicurus was traditional poetry, viewed
erroneously as a repository of wisdom. In demanding that the philosopher
take the place o f the poet as educator, Epicurus did not take away the poet's
function of providing pleasure. Epicurus' remark that the wise person "enjoys
84
Book 5, cols. 11.5 13.4. C . O. BRINK discusses Neoptolemus' poetic theory in ' H o r a c e
on Poetry, Prolegomena to the literary epistles', Cambridge 1963, pp. 4 3 - 7 8 .
85
In 'De partitione oratoria' ( 3 - 4 , 139), Cicero divides rhetoric into three parts: ability
of the speaker; speech; and inquiry (quaestio, that is, subject matter). H e says that these
divisions c o m e from the Academy (139).
Book 5, cols. 1 4 . 3 2 - 1 5 . 1 5 .
Book 5, col. 2 1 . 3 0 - 3 2 .
This interpretation is close to that of AUGUSTO ROSTAGNI, Filodemo c o n t r o l'estetica
classica, pp. 3 9 4 - 4 4 3 of his 'Scritti Minori', v. 1 ('Aesthetica'), Turin 1955; and 'Sulle
tracce di un'estetica dell'intuizione presso gli antichi', pp. 3 5 6 - 371 of the same volume.
86
87
88
89
U 228, 229.

Authenticated
2406
ELIZABETH
ASMIS
the sounds and sights of the Dionysiac festival as much as anyone" supports
this interpretation. 90
In his work 'On the Good King according to Homer' (PHerc. 1507, 'riepi
xoO K D 0 ' " O N T I P O V dyaGoC P A A I ^ E C O Q ' , 'De bono rege secundum Homerum'),
Philodemus shows his friend Piso, to whom he dedicates the book, how a
person can derive a benefit from the poetry of Homer. 9 1 With a view to Piso's
social and political position, Philodemus argues that, even though Homer
depicts much wrong behavior, he provides hints of how a ruler should
act. 9 2 As a philosopher, Philodemus shows Piso how to avoid misinterpreting
Homer's portrayals of rulers. According to Philodemus, Homer presents a
range of characters differing in goodness. At one end are the suitors, who not
only take unjustly from others, but also approve of murder (col. 3 D O R A N D I ) .
At the other end are Nestor and Odysseus who, in their attempts to settle
matters peacefully, are the wisest of the Greeks (cols. 28 29). The Phaeacians
take an intermediate position: Philodemus calls them 'luxurious' (col. 19.31),
but commends them for their athletic skills and pursuit of peace (col. 31). He
seems to think that the story about Ares and Aphrodite, which shocked many
critics, was intended to teach moderation, even though Homer was wrong in
his choice of characters - adulterous gods (col. 20.4 7). He praises Alcinous
as a ruler whose justice brings prosperity to his people (col. 30). The reader
is to extract both encouragement and warnings from these portrayals.
In his exegesis of Homer, Philodemus stresses, more than anything else,
the need for rulers to be gentle and conciliatory, and to avoid war, especially
civil strife. It is a message that he thought the Romans could best learn from
the Epicureans. Throughout his writings, Philodemus invited the Romans to
learn this and other Epicurean lessons, not simply by studying expositions of
Epicurean doctrine, but by ranging with critical insight over the whole of
Greek literature and philosophy.
90
"
PHerc. 1507 was edited by ALEXANDER OLIVIERI, in 'Philodemi riepi TOU ica9' "0|IT|pov
dyaGou PaaiXeax; libellus', Leipzig 1909. It has been re-edited, with a translation and
commentary, by TIZIANO DORANDI, in: II buon re secondo O m e r o , La scuola di Epicuro
3, Naples 1982. T h e work has also been discussed by OSWYN MURRAY, in: Philodemus
on the Good King according to H o m e r , Journal of R o m a n Studies 5 5 (1965): pp. 161 182.
20.
92
In his conclusion t o the treatise, Philodemus indicates that he has taken from H o m e r
"starting-points for the correction of exercises of p o w e r " (&tp[op|icov] ... el? navopBcoaiv
5uva{a}Te[icov], col. 4 3 . 1 6 19). T h e 'starting points' are hints, provided by H o m e r
himself, for correcting the abuses portrayed by him; cf. Plutarch, De audiendis poetis
22 b.

Authenticated

Asmis Philodemus' Epicureanism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asmis Philodemus' Epicureanism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asmis Philodemus' Epicureanism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philodemus' Epicureanism

II. Historical Writings

In his speech 'Against Piso', delivered in 55 B. C., Cicero describes the

HERMANN USENER, ed., Epicrea, Leipzig

U 163, 227, 229.

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

became a historian of philosophy in general. H e excerpted and summarized

in: La Bibliothque de Philodme et l'picurisme R o m a i n , Collection d'tudes anciennes

Filodemo: le altre opere, pp. 5 8 5 - 6 3 3 . N o w see also T. DORANDI, Filodemo: gli

Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 3.38.

D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s ( 1 0 . 2 5 ) c a l l s h i m 7toXuyp<i<po<;. ANNA ANGELI a n d MARIA COLAIZZO

have collected the fragments of Z e n o in 'I f r a m m e n t i di Z e n o n e Sidonio', CErc 9 (1979):

Bibliothque de Philodme, p. 74 = IDEM, Filodemo in Italia, p. 64), and so does T.

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

p o e m w h o s e morality no one could fault. But, Cicero a d d s , at the urging of

p r e d o m i n a n t l y a b o u t love, but they are hardly lascivious.8 O n e m e n t i o n s Piso

another p o e m (Palatine Anthology 6.349), he prays for a safe journey to the

f e a s t s . 1 2 A r e f e r e n c e t o A n t o n y in P h i l o d e m u s ' ' O n S i g n s ' p r o b a b l y

GIGANTE analyses C i c e r o ' s judgment a b o u t P h i l o d e m u s in 'II ritratto di F i l o d e m o nella

H . DE LACY have a r g u e d ( T h e Patrons of Philodemus, in: C l a s s i c a l Philology 34 [1939]:

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Siro at N a p l e s a n d spent t i m e a t H e r c u l a n e u m . 1 4 All the e x t a n t p r o s e writings

PHerc. 312, fr. 1, col. 4, in CRNERT, p. 126.

argues (Die Bibliothek von Herculaneum, pp. 5 6 - 5 9 ) , Horace's interest in Epicureanism

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

stretches of argument. In the following survey, I shall f o c u s on s o m e of the

1. 'Index Stoicorum'; 'Index A c a d e m i c o r u m '

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

t i m e , w i t h friends in various p h i l o s o p h i c a l c a m p s ; and s u c h a p e r s o n m i g h t well

2. ' O n t h e Stoics'; ' O n Epicurus'; ' W o r k s o n the R e c o r d s o f E p i c u r u s a n d

Very little is left o f P h i l o d e m u s ' ' r i e p i 'EjtiKoupou' ( ' D e E p i c u r o ' , P H e r c .

See PHILIPPSON, c o l . 2 4 6 6 . T h e s u p p l e m e n t 'aocpiaxai;' in the title w a s suggested by

T h i s suggestion is adopted by ANNA ANGELI in her n e w edition o f P H e r c . 1005: F i l o d e m o ,

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

It seems that a certain opponent boasted that there was a difference

156 ANRW II 36.4

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

III. Writings on Scientific Method: 'On Phenomena

PHerc. 1065 is a key text in the history of scientific method. It is also

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Philodemus' 'Ilepi euaeeiaq', 'On Piety', consists of two parts (possibly

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

and philosophers. After illustrating the views of numerous poets, Philodemus

Stoischen Theologie im PHerc. 1428', C E r c 4 (1974): pp. 5 - 3 2 . PHerc. 1428 contains

DIELS provides an overview of the similarities by printing sections of Philodemus'

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

T h e first book of Philodemus ' O n the G o d s ' (Tlepi 0ea>v'), preserved in

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

At col. 7 . 3 9 , Philodemus uses the t e r m [8iiX]y|i0a t o refer t o his criticism of X e n o p h o n

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

ism. Both Epicurus and M e t r o d o r u s wrote b o o k s ' O n Wealth'. M e t r o d o r u s '

primo libro 'Sulla Ricchezza' di Filodemo, CErc 8 (1978): pp. 52 95.

first person pronoun in "let us say following [him]" (ruiepq] 8e [AJeyconev

and self-serving, it is no better than the prejudiced, divisive discourse of

Diogenes Laertius 10.120.

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

(a0KaCTio); the all-knower (TtavteiSiincov), as exemplified by the sophist