[Authors and title are listed at the end of the review]
This collection of studies is the second in a series entitled Epicureanism and Scientific Debates, which, as the Introduction indicates (1), focuses on the three areas of physiology, epistemology and ethics organized into three Parts: “Epistemology” (Part I), “Ethics and its Scientific Background” (Part II) and “Ancient Reception of Epicurean Ethics and Epistemology” (Part III).Most of the focus is on epistemology (six chapters), with three chapters dedicated to ethics and another three to reception. As in the first volume, authors in the second installment continue to take their cue from several perspectives, including primary sources, debates and controversies and, finally, reception. The volume presently under review also combines the proceedings of two international conferences, held in 2021 and 2022, both of which included presentations by leading scholars and experts in the field. Following this general context regarding the origins and background of the research in question, the Introduction proceeds with a clear overview of the contents of the chapters included.
The first chapter in Part I, by Giuliana Leone and entitled “The Scientific Lexicon in Epicurus, On Nature XI: Some Observations”, explores the versatility and richness of Epicurus’ vocabulary in various contexts, mostly relating to the Master’s magnum opus. Leone’s examination carefully considers different applications of technical terms such as πυκνότης, which, depending on the context and/or variant form, can indicate “the dense nucleus” (τὸ πύκνωμα) of Epicurean research, the connections between “density” and “continuity” regarding atomic movement and the dynamics of εἴδωλα, or atmospheric density (the cause of lightning) and the stability of the earth, among other possibilities. Following this study is that of Pierre-Marie Morel, which is entitled “Epicurean akribeia” (25-45) and focuses on four different features of this term. These include the following: first, clarity and detailed knowledge (there is complementarity between ἀκριβεία, or a precise knowledge of details, and τυπός, or knowledge of a general scheme); second, certainty (the establishment of scientific principles that serve as starting points for research); third, critical function (including clarity of expression but also the ability to refute baseless and empty opinions); fourth, variability and transversality (the ability to move from detailed knowledge to general knowledge and vice versa without contradiction). The third chapter in the collection is that of Geert Roskam, entitled “Epicurus on the Arts and Sciences: A Reappraisal” (47-66). This examination tracks the Master’s position on παιδεία, from its alleged inception in the schoolroom when he was young (his teacher could not answer the question “Where did Hesiod’s Chaos come from?”) to his later development of a “thoroughly utilitarian outlook” and rejection of useless disciplines (geometrical demonstrations, for example), all of which, as Roskam notes, was indeed a radical but also a nuanced attack on the foundation of traditional education.
In the fourth chapter, by Francisco Verde and entitled “Τὸ προσμένον: Epicurus’ Propositional Theory of Truth”, an argument is made for identifying “that which awaits confirmation,” or τὸ προσμένον, with the subject (the opinion formed by the perceiver) rather than with the object (that which is perceived). In other words, if one falsely concludes that a distant object is one thing rather than another, this is because a false opinion (δόξα) has been formed about it and not because the perception itself (αἴσθησις) was false, which preserves Epicurus’ teaching that all perceptions are true. Chapter 5, by Jean-Baptiste Gourinat and entitled “The Elaboration of Prolepsis Between Epicurus and the Stoics,” is the volume’s longest study (83-118) and carefully tracks the development of “preconception” (πρόληψις) as a criterion of truth within the framework of the dynamic relationship between Epicurus and successive generations of Stoics (Zeno, Cleanthes and Chrysippus). There are interesting similarities, as Gourinat explains, between these schools’ understanding of this epistemological notion, such as a shared vocabulary (86) and a common recourse to this “tool” as a criterion of truth (87). There are also important differences, which include the reliability of sense-perceptions (e.g., πρόληψις or “preconception” relies on and is formed by all αἰσθήσεις, which for Epicurus are true, whereas κατάληψις or “cognition” is based only on what Zeno considered trustworthy perceptions, since he denied that all αἰσθήσεις are true), the extremely subtle distinction—if there is a clear one—between the Stoic νόησις (“thought” or “notion”) and Epicurean πρόληψις, the use of such concepts as a “basis for language communication,” which was clearly more of an Epicurean teaching (95), and, finally, the extremely gnarly and complex debate regarding how humans develop “notions” of the gods (90-8, 111-16).
Phillip Mitsis’ chapter, “Science, Ethics, and ἀνάγκη in Epicurean Thought,” is the last contribution in Part I. Mistis distinguishes between the Stoic teaching of logos as a deified rational force that constantly moves (underpinning necessity and fate) and the Epicureans’ “more static and stable structure for the world,” which opens the way for human freedom as something “between necessity and chance” and in turn supposedly allows for the coexistence of necessity, chance and human freedom (119-20). Questions regarding the Master’s rejection of such forces inevitably arise. For example, regarding chance (τύχη) Epicurus denies that it is a goddess with influence over human existence; rather, chance events offer humans “starting points” (ἀρχαί) for good or bad decisions, provided one confronts such challenges logically or εὐλογίστως (125). Regarding the physical realm (the “laws of nature”), another important distinction is introduced: activity such as the atomic “swerve,” which occurs at a microscopic level, is not necessitated, and it is not clear how atomic indeterminism can allow for macroscopic necessity (128). It does not follow, therefore, that the “laws of nature” (foedera naturae) are necessary and binding, since they are “subject to contingency” (132) just like human laws and pacts; rather, they set certain “limits” (πέρας or finis) without mandating metaphysical necessity. A quote from the ending of this chapter will clarify things: “Our freedom is carried on against a background of chance, which gives us starting points for opportunities, and in a world that is structured by limits that themselves are ontologically variable and which offer us a further world of variation among those challenging limits. Necessity need not enter the picture” (137).
Part II begins with Wim Nijs’ chapter entitled “Medicina ancilla philosophiae: The Epicurean Remedy for the Fear of a Childless Death”. The Garden’s approach to addressing this particular fear is two-pronged: the first focuses on the causes of infertility, which are physiological rather than spiritual (i.e., divine punishment), and the anxiety caused by the prospect of loneliness (143-51); the second focuses on inheritance and the disturbing thought that “undeserving strangers will one day reap the fruits of one’s labors,” along with the inevitability that one’s bloodline will die out because of a lack of offspring (151-6). In both cases, the therapeutic solution involves recalling that, not only is having children an unnecessary desire and not essential for happiness (indeed, infertility can allow individuals to enjoy sexual relations without having to worry about inconvenient pregnancies), but that having good friends and enjoying pleasant companionships, which are consistently reliable (unlike with offspring) and a source of great pleasure (not always true of family members), is “always better than having many children” (156). Next is Mauro Bonazzi’s “Plutarch on Epicurus on Wine,” which is the shortest study (167-75) and examines the evidence for Epicurus’ fragmentary Symposium as preserved in Plutarch’s Quaestiones convivales and Adversus Colotem. The attack, based on Epicurus’ observations about how wine is “heating” for one person but “chilling” for another (168-9). involves the claim that his empiricism ought to entail skepticism. As Bonazzi explains, however, Epicurus is addressing an ontological problem (the issue of the wine producing heat) rather than an epistemological one (the issue of the wine actually being or seeming hot). In other words, although atoms lack properties like color and smell, the effects they produce are real but, depending on the subject in question (the example of how peanuts are healthy for some but dangerous for others is introduced), they are relative but not subjective. The final chapter of the second part is Attila Németh’s “Diogenes of Oinoanda and the Epicurean Epistolary Tradition (178-90), which argues for the originality of Diogenes based on the incorporation of his own letters onto his famous inscription. The first half of the chapter provides an overview of the Epicurean tradition of epistles, beginning with the Master himself and continuing with the private correspondence of the school’s leaders before finishing with examples of later imitations and forgeries. The chapter’s second half explains how Diogenes’ inclusion of epistolary passages in his wall not only imitates Epicurus himself, it also provides viewers with variation while inviting them to “become part of a lively discussion” (185) involving the author’s own personal experiences, thus enhancing the message and bringing the entire inscription to life.
The emphasis of Part III of the volume is the reception of Epicureanism, which begins with Stefano Maso’s “Epicurean Translations/Interpretations by Cicero and Seneca”. Maso’s examination of Cicero’s calculated efforts to represent in Latin technical terms originally used in Greek involves three possibilities (194): using words that have the same meaning—more or less depending on context or nuance—in both languages (e.g., voluptas for ἡδονή), circumlocution (e.g., res occultas et penitus abditas to express ἄδηλα) and simply inserting the Greek term itself (e.g., ἄτομος). Seneca’s motivation is less inimical than Cicero’s and inspired by “the intent of illuminating its [Epicurean doctrine’s] hidden qualities to propose them in new [Stoic] theoretical context” (213). As a result, his translations of moral teachings are sometimes closer to the original (cf. his verbatim translation of βραχέα σοφῷ τύχη παρεμπίπτει from KD 16 as raro, inquit, sapienti foruna intervenit); furthermore, they seem to demonstrate, unlike with Cicero, a keener and perhaps more sympathetic interest in rendering medical or scientific terminology (particularly in connection with the medical ailments of Epicurus in his last days) into understandable Latin.
“‘To Inquire Implies to Know’: Epicurus and Sextus on The Possibility of Knowledge” is the title of Stéphane Marchand’s chapter, which considers “the nature of inquiry and the function of preconception” in three parts. First, an overview of πρόληψις and its role for Epicurus vis-à-vis inquiry, especially in response to the Platonic dilemma of knowledge as presented in the Meno. Second, an explanation of Sextus’ twofold “piratical” treatment of Epicurus’ inquiry argument (i.e., his misrepresentation of preconceptions as disconnected from truth and, consequently, his undermining of Epicurus’ general approach to “the possibility of any inquiry and any judgment thanks to the realistic function of prolepsis”), followed by two arguments detailing the Skeptic reply to Epicurean objections about the “ontological implication” of πρόληψις formation itself. Third, concluding thoughts on the doctrine of preconception as addressing “proto-Skepticism” and “gnoseological pessimism” (a “linguistic or a semantic pessimism, based on the inability to secure the truth of our concepts, considering them to be mere matters of convention and in need of justification”). The last chapter in the collection is by Maddalena Bonelli and entitled “Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Naturalness of Justice (Mantissa 19): An Attack Against Epicurus?” (245-58). This short study considers the possibility of criticism by Alexander of Epicurus’ “thesis of social coexistence as conventional” (245) rather than natural, and presents the argument “justice is by nature” from Aristotelian and Platonic points of view before turning to Epicurus. It is unclear to what degree Alexander is attacking the Garden regarding its position on justice, especially since this position is “more complex than simple conventionalism” (255). In fact, Bonelli suggests that Alexander might have agreed with Epicurus on the communal usefulness of justice but not on its origin (for Epicurus, a social pact and not necessary; for Alexander, a natural impulse and necessary).
The volume is largely well edited. There are indices of ancient and modern names but no general index locorum (although passages are generally from Epicurus himself, Philodemus or Diogenes). The footnotes are helpful without being excessive, as are the bibliographies at the ends of the chapters. All in all, this collection makes valid contributions to the field and belongs on the bookshelf of anyone seeking to keep abreast of developments and trends in Epicurean studies.
Authors and Titles
Introduction, Francesca Masi, Pierre-Marie Morel, and Francesco Verde
Part I: Epistemology
The Scientific Lexicon in Epicurus, On Nature XI: Some Observations, Giuliana Leone
Epicurean akribeia, Pierre-Marie Morel
Epicurus on the Arts and Sciences: A Reappraisal, Geert Roskam
Τò προσμένον: Epicurus’ Propositional Theory of Truth, Francesco Verde
The Elaboration of Prolepsis between Epicurus and the Stoics: A Common Challenge to Innatism? Jean-Baptiste Gourinat
Science, Ethics, and ἀνάγκη in Epicurean Thought, Phillip Mitsis
Part II: Ethics and its Scientific Background
Medicina ancilla philosophiae: The Epicurean Remedy for the Fear of a Childless Life, Wim Nijs
Plutarch on Epicurus on Wine, Mauro Bonazzi
Diogenes of Oinoanda and the Epicurean Epistolary Tradition, Attila Németh
Part III: Ancient Reception of Epicurean Ethics and Epistemology
Epicurean Translations/Interpretations by Cicero and Seneca, Stefano Maso
“To inquire implies to know”: Epicurus and Sextus on the Possibility of Knowledge, Stéphane Marchand
Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Naturalness of Justice (Mantissa 19): An Attack Against Epicurus? Maddalena Bonelli