Published in Pleasure in the Middle Ages

PDF download:

18-01.pdf

Epicureanism was seen by its opponents, both ‘pagan’ and Christian, as the philosophy of pleasure and atheism. From the theological point of view, the accusation of atheism was incorrect, since Epicurus and the Epicureans admitted of the existence of deities, and posited them as models of moral perfection, while denying their interest in human affairs, i.e. providence. This denial aimed at guaranteeing their imperturbability (ataraxia). From the ethical point of view, the ideal of pleasure (hēdonē), on which I shall concentrate here, was grossly misunderstood or distorted by the opponents of Epicureanism, who generally did not take into consideration the moderation, equilibrium, and serenity that the superior ‘catastematic pleasure’ (Epicurus’s real ideal of pleasure) involved. I shall analyse the attitude of late-antique sources, especially Christian, toward Epicureanism and its ethics. A great many of Usener’s and Arrighetti’s fragments of Epicurus indeed come from Christian late-antique authors, such as Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Lactantius, and Augustine, but other patristic authors should be added, such as Basil and Gregory of Nyssa. Even if patristic interest in Epicureanism is often critical, and sometimes imprecise or distorted, nevertheless it is tangible. I shall focus on the authors who make the most interesting use of Epicurean sources, particularly with respect to the ethical doctrine: Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Lactantius, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine, Gregory Nyssen, and Nazianzen, the only one who really understood and praised Epicurus’s notion of hēdonē. I shall also argue that the fading away of the availability and use of good sources on Epicureanism, along with the disappearance of the Epicurean school itself, brought about an impoverishment in the understanding of, and hostility to, Epicurus and Epicureanism.