Submitted by philosophybreak t3_117z7oh in philosophy
Reply to comment by ilolvu in Often mischaracterized as a rather debaucherous, hedonistic philosophy, Epicureanism actually focuses on the removal of pain and anxiety from our lives, and champions a calm ‘philosophy as therapy’ approach in pursuit of life’s highest pleasure: mental tranquility. by philosophybreak
Did Epicurus practice what he preached? According to our testimonia collected by Peter Green:
"His interest in women seems to have been strong, if tangential, and kept up (if we can believe Alciphron [Ep. 4.17]) into extreme old age. Though his professed attitude toward sex might be described as one of distrustful functionalism, the Garden abounded in stimulating female company, of which he clearly approved."
"Perhaps the most important thing to realize about Epicurus is that he was, in fact, the founder of a quasi-religious sect... Epicurean communes were obliged to take an oath, not only to obey the founder, but also to accept his doctrines. He was known as "The Leader" and flattered as a god... Though Epicureans found sex unprofitable and illusory, they did not on that account ban it, and 'there is no need to assume that the relations between the male and female members of the school were platonic [Rist 11]'. The Leader seems to have enjoyed droit de seigneur with several of his followers' wives and mistresses [Plutarch Moralia 1098B, 1129B].
"Act always, he told his followers, as though Epicurus is watching." [Epicur. ap. Sen. Ep. Mor. 25.5]
>Did Epicurus practice what he preached?
We don't know. There's no evidence either way from people who knew him.
His last will and testament is available to us, and it makes no mention of his own children. I'm not an expert on ancient Attic laws of inheritance, but I'd assume his children would be mentioned in such documents.
>According to our testimonia collected by Peter Green:
That name is unfamiliar to me. Can you give me a link or citation?
>"[...] the Garden abounded in stimulating female company, of which he clearly approved."
The Garden was a philosophical school that accepted women as students and faculty, yes.
>'there is no need to assume that the relations between the male and female members of the school were platonic [Rist 11]'.
Apart from the fact that no self-respecting Epicurean would take advice from Plato? :D
But seriously... There is no reason to assume so, but neither is there reason to assume that the relations were in any way different from relations in similar situations.
We in fact know that such relations existed, produced children, and Epicurus didn't condemn it. His will mentions and provides for the children of his student Metrodorus, and those children must have been born during the Garden period.
> The Leader seems to have enjoyed droit de seigneur with several of his followers' wives and mistresses [Plutarch Moralia 1098B, 1129B].
Here Plutarch is straight-up lying... I mean... "provides no evidence to back up his argument".
The text is from Peter Green's Alexander to Actium (California 1993), from Chapter 35, "The Garden of Epicurus" (618-630).
My original post simply expressed the direction I have come to lean concerning the preponderance of testimonia and scholarly debate. You are of course free to weigh the evidence yourself, toss out whatever you wish, and thus lean in whatever direction you wish.
I hope you'll understand if I tend to weigh the opinion of Peter Green and my own over yours. :D
That said, I'm sure you'll find many who lean in your direction.
>The text is from Peter Green's Alexander to Actium (California 1993), from Chapter 35, "The Garden of Epicurus" (618-630).
Thank you. I'll try to hunt that down.
>My original post simply expressed the direction I have come to lean concerning the preponderance of testimonia and scholarly debate.
The problem is that you're trying to evaluate Epicurus' personal behavior from those sources. Most of them are either vague or unreliable (like Plutarch) because they come from writers who were philosophically opposed to Epicurus, or wrote centuries later.
>You are of course free to weigh the evidence yourself, toss out whatever you wish, and thus lean in whatever direction you wish.
My direction is that we don't know, and probably can't know, because there are no sources from people who knew Epicurus personally.
>I hope you'll understand if I tend to weigh the opinion of Peter Green and my own over yours. :D
Of course. This is Reddit after all...
I guess I was confused by your initial post in which you claimed, as a positive statement, that Epicurus himself was "a bit of a prude." I believe my initial statement was: "I don't know." I followed that with an opinion.
For what it's worth, I do have a BA & MA in Classics, and a doctoral degree in Ancient Mediterranean history (not that any of that matters on the interwebs or carries any credibility). I feel equipped to weigh the testimonia appropriately, and indicate which direction that evidence has me leaning.
There are many scholars who take the "we can't know for sure" approach, and then compose entire book-length treatments on the subject that reflect their opinion based on the evidence available. That's the position we're in with nearly every facet of antiquity. Many of my colleagues in history who study more contemporary periods often claim we lack the evidence to do ancient history at all. Obviously, I do not share that perspective.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments